1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) indicated the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the attached sheet No. 1 among the land size of 161.8 square meters in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the owner of the Plaintiff’s land in Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and the housing on its ground. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is the owner of the Plaintiff’s land in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the owner of the Plaintiff’s land in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the housing on its ground.

B. The Plaintiff’s land and the Defendants’ land are in contact with each other, and the Defendants own a septic tank buried in the underground of part 1.6 square meters in part 1.6 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated in attached Table 1 appraisal drawings among the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant septic tank”).

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, among the Defendants’ land, owns stairs on the ground of partial 0.4 square meters, which are connected in order to each point of the attached Table 2 appraisal drawings indicated in attached Table 1, 2, 6, 7, and 1, and in turn connected with each point of the said appraisal drawings indicated 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2, the same appraisal drawings, is occupying a part of 2.7 square meters on the ship.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), appraiser I's cadastral survey result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to remove the instant septic tank to the Plaintiff, the owner of the land, barring special circumstances.

B. (1) The Defendants asserted that the statutory superficies claim against the Defendants is established as to the part where the Defendants’ septic tanks were installed among the Plaintiff’s land.

Although purification tanks can be seen as a constituent part of a building and statutory superficies under the customary law for the ownership of the building can be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da42399, Dec. 10, 1993). One co-owner of land constructs a building with the consent of a majority of the shares of other co-owners.