[1] Whether the possession of the previous owner is converted into the possession of the other owner due to the loss of ownership by the successful bid (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where a building or a person who owned a lot of adjacent land partially affected by a successful bid loses the ownership of the site and only the building was owned, the possession of the previous site and the affected land was entirely converted into the possession of the owner

[1] In a case where the owner of a real estate, since the commencement of a voluntary auction based on a mortgage established on real estate, proceeds from the auction without stopping the execution of the auction, and the real estate was knocked out to a third party and paid the price so that the previous owner’s ownership was lost, it is reasonable to deem that the possession of the real estate continues to be the possession of the real estate, barring special circumstances.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized that the possession of the part on the land on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the building site owned and occupied together with a building site is lost ownership due to a voluntary auction procedure based on the right to collateral security established only on the building site and only the building is owned by the person on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the building site owned and occupied the building site, unless there is any economic benefit to continue possession by separating only the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the building site was occupied separately from the use of the building, it is nothing more than an incidental possession along with the building site depending on the ownership and use of the

[1] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 197(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 63Da262 delivered on June 20, 1963 (No. 11-2, 36), Supreme Court Decision 68Da523 delivered on July 30, 1968 (Gong1988, 586)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Gyeong-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na27263, 27270 delivered on June 13, 1996

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. First, we examine the first ground for appeal.

(1) On April 7, 1969, the lower court: (a) purchased shares in the above part on the non-party 1 (hereinafter the above non-party 1 omitted); (b) purchased shares in the non-party 1 (hereinafter the above non-party 1 omitted); (c) purchased shares in the non-party 2 in the name of 79.7 square meters of the non-party 1,620; and (d) held that the non-party 2 owned shares in the above part on the non-party 1 (the non-party 2 omitted; (b) purchased shares in the non-party 1's name on the non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1'6's non-party 1'6'

(2) However, if the ownership of the real estate was lost because the owner of the real estate had been auctioned and sold to a third party without stopping the execution of auction since the auction had started by the mortgage, it is reasonable to view that the former owner continues to possess the real estate reverted to a third party, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decisions 68Da523, Jul. 30, 1968; 87Da1879, Feb. 23, 198). According to the records, the defendant specified the part of the site of the building of this case as the location of the building of this case and divided ownership of the building of this case among the land of this case into the land of this case, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul (No. 4 omitted) and the part of the building of this case which was owned by the defendant as the part of the building of this case, which was owned by the defendant's land of this case, which was not owned by the defendant, as the part of the building of this case's land of this case, which was not owned by the defendant.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's possession on the part of the site of this case constitutes the possession on the part of the site of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the conversion into the possession on the part of the site of this case into the possession on the part of the owner on the other hand

2. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)