1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,578,312 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 19, 2016 to January 23, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer on December 2, 2008 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 8, 2015, upon the Defendant’s application filed by B, the decision of compulsory commencement of auction was rendered to Busan District Court C on each of the above real estate, and the Plaintiff purchased the relevant real estate as a result of the auction conducted, and the Plaintiff paid the price and acquired ownership on April 14, 2016.

C. After acquiring the ownership of the instant building, the Defendant installed and used a system cooling and cooling machine (which consists of indoors, outdoors, and pipes buried in a tent; hereinafter “instant cooling and cooling machine”) on the 2, 3, and 4th floor, and brought them back to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2016, which was after the sale of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff newly installed a system heating and cooling system installation installation work at KRW 10,578,312 to a construction business operator (stock company DNA).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, 5, and 6 (including Serials) , fact inquiry of Dlobs Co., Ltd. in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the air conditioners of this case through a compulsory auction.

Therefore, the defendant's bringing about it constitutes a tort that infringes on the plaintiff's ownership, and the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for damages incurred thereby.

B. The Defendant’s allegation that the heating and cooling machine of this case was installed by himself, and the building of this case as in other home appliances, as in other home appliances, shall be deemed as separate articles, and it is irrelevant to compulsory auction.

Therefore, since this is an object owned by the defendant, the plaintiff's assertion is not correct.

3. Article 100(2) of the Civil Act provides that “The accessory shall follow the disposition of the principal thing.”