(b) The validity of a successful bid made without any appraisal at the market price on the corresponding goods;

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

3. All the costs of appeal and the costs of lawsuit resulting from a counterclaim regarding the principal lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are assessed against the defendant, and the defendant primarily confirms that the defendant is the defendant's possession of 1.6 square meters, 3 square meters, 4.5 square meters, 41 square meters, 41 square meters, 6.5 square meters, 34 square meters, 6.5 square meters, 1.6 square meters, 34 square meters, 6.5 square meters, 34 square meters, 6.5 square meters, 16 square meters, 6.5 square meters, 16.5 square meters, 16.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff pays 29,764,500 won to the Defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the Plaintiff and the declaration of provisional execution.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The court of first and second instances sought a judgment that all of the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the Plaintiff.

In full view of the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 (provisional disposition decision), and evidence Nos. 3-1 (provisional disposition execution protocol), and the result of the examination by the court below, the whole purport of the pleadings by the non-party 1 as a result of the appraisal by the non-party 1, the building recorded in the attached list shall be acknowledged as being owned by the plaintiff who completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff on Sep. 3, 1971 by the decision of the Seoul Civil and Civil District Court on Nov. 27, 1970, and the facts that the defendant occupied the part of the purport of the claim among the above building, and there is no counter-proof otherwise, the defendant shall be obligated to clarify the above possession portion to the plaintiff.

피고 소송대리인은, 별지목록기재 건물은 원래 피고소유로서 철근콩크리트 평옥개 세멘부록조 스레트즙 6계건 교실 1동 건평 88평 7홉 5작외 2내지 5계평 각 101평 7홉 9작, 6계평 16평 6홉 9작, 옥탑 10평 6홉 6작, 지하실 81평 7홉 5작이었고, 등기부에도 그와 같이 등재되어 있는데 피고는 원고가 위 등기부상 표시부분을 앞서 본 경매에 의하여 그 소유권을 취득하기 이전에 위 건물에 잇대어 도합 198평 4홉 3작을 증축하였는바 위 증축된 부분은 그 부분 전용의 독립된 대문과 계단이 설치되어 있는 별개의 독립건물이므로 원고의 근저당권의 목적물에 포함되지 아니하였으며, 경매절차에 있어서도 등기부상 등재된 평수만이 경매목적물로 평가되었던 것으로서 원고의 소유가 아니므로 이 부분에 대한 원고의 명도청구는 부당하다고 다투므로 살피건대, 위 갑 제1호증 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증(경락허가결정), 갑 제5호증(경매기록표지), 갑 제6호증(감정의뢰에 대한 회보), 갑 제8호증(건축대지증명원), 갑 제9호증(부기문), 을 제1호증(판결)의 각 기재, 당심증인 소외 2의 증언, 원심 및 당심의 검증결과, 원심감정인 소외 1의 감정결과 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 별지목록기재 건물은 그 등기부상표시대로 원래 철근 콩크리트조 평옥개 세멘부록조 스레트즙 6계건 교실 1동 건평 88평 7홉 5작외 2내지 5계평 각 101평 7홉 9작, 6계평 66평 6홉 6작, 옥탑 10평 6홉 6작, 지하실 81평 7홉 5작(이하 본 건물부분이라 약칭한다)으로서 소외 3 소유이던 것을 1969.8.1. 피고(원래 주식회사 대한상공일보사 이었다가 1971.6.5. 주식회사 한국경제일보사로 상호변경되었음)가 이를 매수하여 같은 해 9.30. 피고의 변경전 상호인 주식회사 대한상공일보사 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 1971.9.30.자로 전소유자 소외 3 명의로 당국으로부터 위 본건물부분에 관하여 스레트즙 부록조 2층 건물 연건평 30입방메타의 가건물 증축허가를 받고, 같은 해 10월경 위 본 건물부분에 잇대어 철근 콩크리트조 스라브즙 및 세멘부록 스레트즙 1층 건평 16평 3홉 3작, 2내지 5층 각 41평 3홉 2작, 6층 16평 8홉 2작 합계 198평 4홉 3작을 증축하여(이하 증축부분이라 약칭하고 위 본 건물부분과 증축부분을 합하여 이 사건 건물이라 약칭한다) 현재 별지목록기재 건물로 되었으나 위 증축에 따른 변경등기를 하지 않은채 본건물부분과 증축부분을 모두 피고회사의 사무실로 사용하여 온 사실, 위 증축허가는 1969.11.4.자로 그 허가평수를 초과하여 증축하였고 도시계획에 저촉되어 도로예정지를 침범하여 건축하였다는 이유로 당국에 의하여 취소된 사실, 위 증축부분은 본건물부분의 벽에 잇대어 건축되었고 증축부분내에 1층에서 5층까지의 별개의 계단이 설치되어 있고 출입문도 따로 설치되어 있기는 하나 본건물부분과 함께 동일한 용도로 사용하기 위하여 증축되었고 외관상으로도 본건물부분과 함께 한 개의 건물로 보여지고 현재 그 2층부터 5층까지는 본건물부분과 증축부분 사이의 벽마저도 헐려서 위 2부분이 합쳐 같은 방실로 사용되고 있으며 위 증축부분에 관하여는 별도의 등기가 되어있지 않는 사실, 원고는 1969.9.30.자로 이 사건 본건물부분과 그 대지에 관하여 서울민사지방법원에 부동산임의경매신청을 하였는바 경매법원으로부터 경매목적물의 싯가감정을 명령받은 감정인은 이 사건 부동산의 싯가를 감정함에 있어서 위 증축부분이 도시계획에 저촉된다 하여 경매목적물평가에서 제외하고 본건물부분에 관하여만 싯가를 감정하였고, 위 경매법원은 그 감정결과에 따른 금 74,090,140원을 최저경매가격으로 정하여 경매절차를 진행한 결과 앞서 본바와 같이 원고가 1970.11.27. 이를 경락한 후 1971.6.30. 그 경락대금 88,930,000원을 완납한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 위 인정에 어긋나는 당심증인 소외 4의 증언부분은 믿을 수 없고 을 제2 내지 제6호증의 각 기재는 위 인정에 방해되지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없다.

In full view of the facts acknowledged above, the building of this case is composed of only one building consisting of the main building and the extension section, and it is difficult to regard the main building and the extension section as separate from each other. The above extension section is consistent with the main building at the time of the extension, and it cannot be the object of ownership independently, and it is included in the object of the right to collateral security as seen above. Thus, the above part is also included in the object of the right to collateral security, and the ownership was transferred to the plaintiff as a whole with the main building by the auction. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

Although the above extension portion was consistent with the above part of the building and the ownership of the plaintiff was transferred by auction under the above auction, since auction was conducted without the market price appraisal as to the above part of the building, and the plaintiff has won unjust enrichment of KRW 29,764,50, which is the market price of the above extension portion, and the defendant has the right to attracting the above extension portion until the plaintiff was returned the above amount. Thus, in the above auction, the court of auction conducted auction by setting 74,090,140 won, which is the appraisal price of the above extension portion of the building except the market price appraisal, at the minimum auction price for the above extension portion, 88,930,00 won, and the plaintiff is obligated to return the above portion of the building to the defendant without any legal interest of the plaintiff 5,00,000 won. Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiff cannot be found to have been entitled to receive the above extension portion of the building at the time of the above auction, the plaintiff is obligated to return the above portion of the building to the defendant without any legal interest of the plaintiff 1.

The plaintiff's attorney at the time of June 30, 1971, as a basic claim for the above 137,40,724 won as loans against the defendant at the time of voluntary auction. However, as a result of the above voluntary auction, the plaintiff paid 85,704,165 won out of the above 81,69 won, and still paid 51,69 won remaining. Among the above claims, the plaintiff asserted that the above claim against the defendant was set off within 4,271,245 won, which is the amount of the above claim to return unjust enrichment against the defendant, 4,271,245 won, which is the amount of the above claim to return unjust enrichment as stated in the evidence No. 4, No. 9 of the above defendant No. 4, and the purport of pleading No. 9 is that the above claim against the defendant was based on the above voluntary auction as of June 30, 1971, which was 137,400,750 won of the above claim for unjust enrichment 165.

2. Next, the Defendant brought the instant counterclaim against the Defendant’s counterclaim only when it came to the trial, and the Plaintiff clearly expressed its intention not to consent to the said counterclaim as the safety side. As such, the instant counterclaim is unlawful and dismissed under Article 382(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to occupy the part of the building in this case which is owned by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is just, and the defendant's appeal is just and without merit. Thus, the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is illegal, and the costs of the lawsuit are all assessed against the plaintiff as to the main lawsuit and counterclaim.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Judge)