[1] Criteria for determining whether the extended part complies with the existing building

[2] The case holding that a new building cannot be deemed to have been one building because it corresponds to the existing building, in light of the overall circumstances, where the party removes the walls between the existing building and the new building adjacent thereto and uses the whole building as a single commercial building

[3] Whether the successful bidder acquires the ownership of the extension portion in case where the extension portion corresponding to the existing building is not assessed as the object of auction at the auction procedure for the existing building (affirmative)

[4] The scope of the exercise of the right to ask for a seat

[1] In a case where a building is extended, whether the extended part is deemed to correspond to the existing building should be determined by considering not only the physical structure attached to the existing building, but also the economic utility independent of the existing building in terms of its use and function, and whether the extended part can be the separate object of ownership in the transaction, and the intent of its owner.

[2] The case holding that a new building cannot be deemed to have been one building because it corresponds to the existing building, in light of the overall circumstances, if the party removes the walls between the existing building and the new building adjacent thereto and uses the whole building as a single commercial building

[3] As long as the extension portion of the existing building does not have utility as an independent building separate from the existing building because it complies with the existing building, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the corresponding extension portion even if it was not assessed as an object of auction at the auction procedure for the existing building.

[4] The court's exercise of the right to make a statement is to supplement the statement of the party when the party's statement is inconsistent or defective or it is impossible to know the purport of the statement due to the lack of identification, to make it clear or to urge the party who has the burden of proof to prove it. The court's exercise of the right to make a statement is not allowed since the party's acts are contrary to the principle of pleading and defense.

[1] Article 256 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 256 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 187, 256, and 358 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da33541 decided Oct. 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3294), Supreme Court Decision 94Da11606 decided Jun. 10, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 1935), 94Da5306 decided Jun. 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2194, 2144), 80Da2757, 2758 decided Nov. 10, 198 (Gong1989, 296Da196969, 297, 29595) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da196965 decided Jun. 14, 1996 (Gong1996, 2195)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na24411 delivered on April 14, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

In a case where a building is extended, whether the extended part is deemed to correspond to the existing building shall be determined not only by physical structure attached to the existing building, but also by whether the extended part can be an independent economic utility from the existing building in terms of its use and function and by taking into account the intent of its owner, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu600, Feb. 23, 198; 94Da53006, Jun. 14, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 purchased the non-party 2's new building on the non-party 3's new building and the non-party 2's non-party 4's own building on the non-party 6's new building and the non-party 2's own building on the non-party 3's new building and the non-party 4's own building on the non-party 1's 7's own building on the non-party 2's own building on the non-party 3's own building and the non-party 4's own building on the non-party 6's own building on the non-party 1's own building on the non-party 4's own building on the non-party 7's own building on the non-party 2's own building on the non-party 1'the non-party 2's own building on the non-party 1's own building on the non-party 4's own building site on the non-party 1's own building on the non-6'.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the conformity. The Supreme Court decision cited in the ground of appeal is different from the case, and it is not appropriate to

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

2. On the third ground for appeal

As long as the extension portion of a building does not have utility as an independent building separate from the existing building because it complies with the existing building, the successful bidder shall acquire ownership of the corresponding extension portion (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da26772, 26789, Dec. 8, 1992).

However, in the case of this case, as long as the new building cannot be seen as being in conformity with the existing building, the plaintiffs cannot acquire shares of the new building that is not subject to public sale in the public sale procedure for the existing building, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of ownership acquisition

The ground of appeal disputing this issue is rejected.

3. On the fourth and fifth grounds

The court's exercise of the right to ask for tin shall be made to supplement the statement of the party when it is impossible to know the purport of the statement due to contradictions or defects or difficulties, or to urge the party who has the burden of proof to prove them. The acts of inducing the submission of facts or methods of attack and defense which the parties did not assert, are not in violation of the principle of pleading (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da35106, Jun. 9, 1992; 95Da22078, 22085, Nov. 28, 1995; 96Da5001, May 10, 1996; 96Da5001, May 10, 1996; 200Da32077, Oct. 3, 200, etc.). The court below's decision that the plaintiff's right to request the return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's store and the plaintiff's right to request the return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff's 2.

In addition, in light of the size, structure, use, and current use of the newly constructed building of this case as seen earlier, there is no room to regard it as an accessory which continuously contributes to assist the economic utility of the existing building, and thus, it cannot be said that the lower court did not clearly state this point in its decision, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are also rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)