2. The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows from the third to fourth 13 pages (2. b. and c.).

“B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages due to the destruction of the wooden floor at the suspender of the instant building, and the wooden floor installed in the suspender of the instant building was owned by the Plaintiff after being awarded a successful bid for the instant building, and the Defendant removed part of the wooden floor without any authority while leaving the instant building. As such, the Defendant asserts that as a tort, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the share of the Plaintiff (=21,643,370 x 1/40 x delay damages) out of the expenses for the reconstruction of the wooden floor, which is the damage incurred by the Plaintiff.

In order for a movable to be recognized as being consistent with a real estate, it should be determined after considering whether the movable is attached and combined to the extent that it can not be separated without causing damage to the movable or excessive expenses, and whether the existing real estate can be the object of separate ownership in the transaction with independent economic utility in its physical structure, use and function.

However, in full view of the description and image of evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the testimony of the witness L of the party, the wooden floor installed in the entrance of the building of this case is installed at his own expense for the sale of skiing equipment, the beauty of the entrance prior to commencing a leasing business, and the easiness of access from the building of this case, and it was constructed by the method that the Defendant loaded pipe around the existing concrete stairs located on the front of the building of this case and added the wooden board above.