Criteria for determining compliance with the existing building of the extension section;

Whether the extension section of the existing building can be seen as the corresponding building or as an independent building should be determined by considering not only the physical structure attached to the existing building, but also whether the extension section can be the object of separate ownership in the transaction with independent economic utility from the existing building in terms of its use and function.

Article 256 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 358, Nov. 12, 1985) (Law No. 1986, Feb. 23, 1988; Law No. 8460, Apr. 11, 1989) (Gong1989,748)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Llish-gun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 91Na10433 delivered on June 24, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Libera Group.

With respect to the ownership of the building subject to removal of this case, the court below recognized that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the above non-party 2 on July 1, 1966, leased the building to the above non-party 1 and the father of the above non-party 3, removed the above building from the above building, and increased or reconstructed part of the building from the cement-gun's building to the above building on the ground of the non-party 12.3 square meters of the building and the building from the above Eup ( Address omitted) before the division of around 1917, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1 and the building owner of the above non-party 3, occupy the above building, and used the cement-gun and the building attached to the above building before the division of 1917, were not in conformity with the rules of evidence, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the above building and the building's physical utility was within its own independent use.

In addition, the court below's decision that the above hospital building was destroyed by flood around 1970 is proper, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding, such as the theory of litigation, etc. The arguments are without merit.

2. The grounds of appeal by Defendants 2 and 3 are examined.

In light of the records, it is just that the court below recognized that the land of this case is owned by the plaintiffs who completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future, and it cannot be said that there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

As duly determined by the court below, inasmuch as the land of this case is owned jointly by the plaintiffs, as in the theory of classical lawsuit, the defendant Gun had the above defendants leased and reside in the above building, and had the above defendants survey the occupied part and submit the result to the defendant Gun to the defendant Gun in order to deny the part of the land possessed by each of the above defendants, such circumstance alone is insufficient to deny the plaintiffs' claim of this case against the above defendants seeking the eviction from each of the possessed parts of the building of this case because it is based on the land ownership.

All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants 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.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)