According to the original decision, the court below held that the building of this case was a separate building constructed on the same lot number as the object of auction, and it cannot be deemed as an accessory or an appurtenant building, since the building of this case was stated on the house register as an appurtenant building of this case, it cannot be concluded that it was fit to the building or that it was an accessory to the building for auction, and that the building of this case was an accessory to the building of this case. In one record, there is no evidence to find that the building was included in the object of this case (not evaluated as an object of auction) even though the building was included in the object of this case. Accordingly, the court below's decision cannot be viewed as justified.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

According to the records, the fact that the applicant and the non-applicant are rent 4,500 won and rent 1 column from July 7, 1965 to May 1966 is stated in the public notice of auction date (section 50). Thus, there is no reason to argue that there was no such entry in the theory of lawsuit (section 50). It is clear that the building was constructed on the site of this case, which is a new reason that the re-appellant did not claim in the court below, and therefore, there is no part of the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, as per Disposition under Articles 413(2) and 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)