** Si* Gu**** the same.

Service place** City** Gu** the same.

Head of the Attorney*

Gangwon* Military** Myeon*

Service place** City** Dong

*** (**************************))

** Si* * the same

*** (************************))

** Si* * the same

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

* (********************)

** Si* * the same

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

(a) The plaintiff, Sep. 1, 2001, Red** from Gangwon-do** Myeon** Myeon** L********- x6 meters large 16 meters and the land

on September 4, 2001, for sale, the real estate stated in the separate sheet

one owner who has completed the registration of ownership transfer.

(b) The deceased Kim* (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and his spouse Kim ** The annexed Schedule 1.

On December 6, 1993, the building was newly constructed and owned in the name of the Deceased on December 6, 1993.

Following the completion of preservation registration, in addition to the outer part of the building of this case, the buildings listed in attached Table No. 2

(n) New construction of a building ("extension") has been made (Provided, That the register or the building for the extended part);

On May 23, 1995, Defendant Kim Kim * The reason why the donation was made in the future.

The registration of ownership transfer has been completed.

C. After that, on May 18, 1998, the debtor Kim Kim**, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security.

******* voluntary auction on the basis of the above-mortgage.

Red** The building of this case was awarded a successful bid on April 10, 2001, after the procedure was commenced. D. The deceased was living in the building of this case as well as Defendant Kim** while living in the building of this case and the extension building of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17673, Jul. 7,

21. On June 5, 2003, a letter of intent to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff was drawn up.

Defendant Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim*, Kim** this deceased on March 25, 2005.

Joint inheritance was jointly inherited.

[Grounds for Recognition: entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, each of Eul evidence 3-1 to 5, each of the images and changes of Eul evidence 3-5

[Purpose of the whole theory]

2. Determination

In the case of the extension of a building, whether the extended part is deemed to correspond to the existing building shall be determined by taking into account physical structure attached to the existing building, its use and function, whether the extended part can be an independent economic utility from the existing building and become an object of separate ownership in the transaction, and the intent of its owner. In the case where the extended part corresponds to the existing building, the right to collateral security against the existing building shall also take effect on the extended part consistent with Article 358 of the Civil Act. Thus, even if the auction procedure for the existing building was not assessed as an object of auction, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the adjacent part.

According to the above evidence, the extended building is connected to the building of this case and the building of this case in the form of "A" and has the roof of the existing building of this case. The building of this case has a structure that can be used for residential purpose like the water of this case. The deceased and the defendant Kim**, who resided in the building of this case and the extended building of this case and occupied and used it as a whole, there is no counter-proof evidence. In light of these facts, the extended building of this case is consistent with the building of this case and its entirety forms a single building. Therefore, the right to collateral security established on the building of this case has its effect as to the extended building of this case regardless of whether the extended building was evaluated as the object of auction * * is acquired the right to own it again and transferred it again to the plaintiff, so long as there is no assertion or proof as to the right to occupy the building of this case, the defendants are obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to deliver it to the Plaintiff is not acceptable, on different premises, since the letter and extended building were newly built for the purpose of operating this private house, which is separate from the building of this case, and the auction section of the building of this case was not evaluated as the object of auction. Therefore, even if the deceased agreed to deliver it to the Plaintiff, it does not have an effect on Defendant Kim** even if the deceased agreed to deliver it to the Plaintiff).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

1. Existing building: 34.56 m2 of a single-story house in the 203-3 block structure, string-3 block structure, string-house in the Yyangyang-gun: 42.6m of a single-story house in the Yolyang-gun; and