1. The defendant removes to the plaintiff the buildings listed in the annexed sheet No. 11,273 square meters on the land of Seo-gu Busan, Seo-gu, Busan.

1. The fact that the Defendant newly built and possessed a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the order owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) is either a dispute between the parties, or recognized according to the purport of the entries and arguments as to the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff seeking the removal of interference.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the claim of statutory superficies under the customary law, the Defendant asserted that the previous owner of the instant land acquired the consent to use the instant land from C, which was the previous owner of the instant land, and that, in the event the owner of the instant land is changed between C and C, the Defendant did not conclude a special agreement to remove the instant building. Therefore, the Defendant acquired statutory superficies as to the instant land under the customary law.

On the other hand, legal superficies under customary law are established when the land belongs to the same owner and the building belongs to the same owner, but the building or the land becomes different due to sale and purchase or any other cause. Therefore, if a building is newly constructed on the land with consent from the owner of the land, there is no room for establishing legal superficies under customary law (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26003, Oct. 30, 199), and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim may not be allowed as an abuse of rights since the plaintiff did not carry out the project of the regional housing association within the land of this case and there is no benefit in receiving the land of this case due to the decision of commencing auction on the land of this case, and it can be viewed that it violates the objective social order.