Where an independent building separate from a mortgaged building has been sold en bloc, the validity of the successful bid for the said independent building;

If a building on which the plaintiffs newly built and completed preservation registration at their own expense pursuant to a separate title after the establishment registration of a new building is conducted is entirely separate from the existing building which became the object of collateral security and its physical structure, use, function, and transaction, even if the aforementioned new building was sold to the above new building, the successful bid is null and void as to the above new building, which is a separate building, even if it was awarded a successful bid.

Article 640 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 33 of the Auction Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 714 delivered on August 2, 1983, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na10002

Jeon Young-young et al.

Daegu District Court (83Gahap1966)

All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants paid to the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 60,000 per month from April 19, 1983 to April 19, 1983, the amount of KRW 600,000 per month in 200,00 for 134 square meters in a factory for the examination of the level of the water in mentmen, bricks, and sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The facts of the Defendants’ possession since the lease of each of the buildings stated in the Defendants’ purport of the claim (hereinafter “the instant building”) from the Plaintiffs on April 19, 1983 with a two-year period fixed from the Plaintiffs, and the monthly rent of KRW 600,000 did not conflict between the parties. However, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the establishment of the instant building could be acknowledged as having completed registration of initial ownership under the Daegu District Court Decision No. 77923, Nov. 20, 1982, the building of this case shall be presumed to be owned by the Plaintiffs, unless there are any particular circumstances.

The defendants asserted that the above preservation registration is null and void on the ground that the above preservation registration was made without any authority of the plaintiffs, because the building of this case was originally owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party Seoul Trust Bank, the non-party 1 and the defendant acquired ownership by auction and sold it to the defendants.

Therefore, the above evidence Nos. 5-2, 10, 11, 14, 15 (Evidence No. 4; hereinafter the same shall apply), 16, 17, 1 Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 5-1, 6-1 or 4 of the evidence Nos. 6-2, 7 of the court below's witness No. 6-1, 2, and 9 of the Kim Jong-hwan's testimony (excluding the above evidence No. 6, and the part which was not trusted after the witness No. 6 and the testimony of Kim Jong-young's 2, 197, 208, 300, 14, 2007, 17, 317, 317, 317, 197, 208, 306, 306, 317, 196, 204, 317, 196, 206, 36, and 17, 3.

However, the above-mentioned building 1, 2 and 3 were used for the construction of the above-mentioned building Nos. 6 and the above-mentioned building Nos. 81 and 2 to 7 of the building Nos. 81 and the above-mentioned building Nos. 61 and the above-mentioned building Nos. 77 of the building Nos. 1 and 7 of the above-mentioned building Nos. 87 of the building no dispute. The above-mentioned building Nos. 1 and 7 of the building Nos. 6 of the above-mentioned building Nos. 1 and 8 of the building Nos. 6 of the above-mentioned building Nos. 1 and 7 of the above-mentioned building Nos. 87 of the building Nos. 1 and 7 of the above-mentioned building Nos. 97 of the building Nos. 1 and the above-mentioned building Nos. 80 of the building Nos. 6 of the building Nos. 1 and 8 of the building Nos. 2 of the building No. 7 of the building No.

Therefore, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that each of the buildings of this case was a building constructed by a separate title and completed preservation registration for its own expenses after the establishment of the right to collateral security, and that it was a building entirely separate from the existing building that was originally the object of collateral security as the ownership of the non-party, in the order of its physical structure, use, function, and transactional point. Thus, as long as it cannot be seen that each of the buildings of this case was consistent with the existing building that became the object of collateral security or that it was not only the accessory, the successful bid for each of the buildings of this case, which was awarded by the Seoul Trust Bank, does not necessarily necessarily belong to the above bank (Supreme Court Decision 83Da177 delivered on August 23, 1983). Thus, the above assertion by the defendants on the premise that the ownership of each of the buildings of this case can be transferred to the defendants through the bank of this case through the non-party.

Therefore, the defendants' ownership registration was made illegally from the date of the lease of the building of this case on May 2, 1983, and the defendants purchased each site of the same 206-17 and 206-18 of the same building site of this case including each building of this case from the above bank of the same 206-17, the same 206-200, 315,000,000 won, and there is no assertion or proof that the above lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was paid for the above contract rent of this case, and the above lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was lawfully terminated as delivery of the complaint of this case on the ground that the above lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was delayed, so the above lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated as delivery of the complaint of this case on the ground that the above two or more occasions were delayed, and the above lease contract of this case was made from April 19, 1983 to the above building name, and all of the plaintiffs' claims for payment of 600,000 won per month.

Judges Jeon Soo-young (Presiding Judge)