1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building listed in the attached list No. 2.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the sale price and acquired ownership in the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate held D in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “existing building”) where registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of C.

B. On December 29, 200, the Defendant: (a) leased from C the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “extension”) from C to KRW 15,000,000, and occupied and used the building; (b) the extended building was excluded from the object of auction of the procedure for compulsory auction.

C. Meanwhile, on June 18, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming for lease on a deposit basis with the High Court of Gwangju District (2014Gaso843), which rendered a judgment against C, that “C shall pay the Defendant KRW 15,00,000 and damages for delay thereof,” and received dividends of KRW 7,688,247 during the compulsory auction procedure with the title of execution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a case where the legal doctrine is extended, not only the physical structure attached to the existing building, but also the physical utility attached to the existing building in terms of its use and function, whether the extended portion can be an independent economic object from the existing building in the context of its use and function, and the intent of its owner should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors:

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da63110 Decided October 25, 2002, etc.). Furthermore, insofar as the extension part of a building accords with the existing building and thus does not have utility as an independent building is separate from the existing building, the extension part of the existing building did not have utility as an object of auction from the auction procedure for the existing building.

Even if the successful bidder acquires the ownership of the corresponding extended part.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da24256 delivered on May 10, 2002, etc.).