The nature and opposing power of the acceptance right of the sea water;

Even if a person who acquired the right to take over trees from the owner of a building agreed to bear the management expenses for the maintenance according to the ratio of the water area to the maintenance expenses, if such right is similar to a real right and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was already completed prior to the date of acquisition, the mon cannot set up against the successful bidder due to the execution of the above right to collateral security.

Article 35 of the Auction Act, Article 233 of the Civil Act

Sponnam Line

Han Fama

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (87Gahap1852)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the transfer agreement dated April 30, 1985 with respect to shares of 8.5 percent of the total amount of 8.5 shares in the maintenance of the listing of the attached Table 1 to the plaintiff.

In the first place, management expenses shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant according to the ratio of the area of water salt farm, and the plaintiff shall pay the defendant the amount of 1,443,675 won per year as the usage fees for the maintenance specified in the attached Table 1, and the plaintiff shall have the right to receive sea water from each salt farm listed in the attached Table 2.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials (the part of the claim was amended in the trial).

1. On the other hand, the court below held the following facts: Gap's 2, Eul's 12's 12's 12's 3. The defendant acquired the above 9's 1's 1's 6.1's 3's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 9's 1's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9's 1's 9's 17's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 10's 1's 9's 9's 9's 1's 6's 10's 1's 9's 6's 6's 1''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.

First, in the procedure of voluntary auction requested by the above bank, which is a mortgagee for salt farms listed in the maintenance of the case and the attached list 3, on April 30, 1985, the plaintiff gave up participation in the above auction, on condition that the plaintiff gives up participation in the above auction, the defendant had already purchased on January 20, 1978, in package with salt farms listed in the attached list 2, but the ownership transfer registration was completed on June 30, 1984, after the above establishment registration was completed on June 30, 1984, 8.5/45 shares for the maintenance of the case, which was completed on June 30, 1984 (the registration money was paid, 679/4 shares) as it was owned by the plaintiff, and agreed to allow the plaintiff to transfer the ownership of the above auction at the same time. Since the defendant confirmed the above agreement between the defendant and the defendant on April 30, 1985, the defendant's right to participate in the auction was maintained on the ground of the above agreement.

Therefore, in light of whether the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, agreed on the share of 8.5 percent during the maintenance of the case at issue, to transfer the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff as to whether the Defendant agreed on the share of 8.5 percent during the maintenance of the case at issue, the Defendant’s testimony of the lower court’s melting order, letter-type, and Kim Jong-Un, which conforms to this, is without any evidence to acknowledge it differently. The Plaintiff’s assertion

Second, as the salt farms listed in the attached list No. 2 owned by the plaintiff are located far from the sea, it is impossible to accept sea water without passing through the maintenance of the case in light of the surrounding topography. Since there is custom that allows salt farmers who own only salt farms to take sea water through nearby maintenance and waterway without maintaining it, they should bear the actual expenses, and bear the maintenance expenses of this case according to the rate of water size of the plaintiff and the defendant, as a right under such customary law, and claim that the plaintiff has the right to take sea water through this procedure. However, although there is custom as argued by the plaintiff as to salt farms and maintenance and utilization, it is difficult to believe that each testimony of the above witness's old melting, letter-type, Kim Jong-young, and Sim-young's witness's testimony that there is custom as argued by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is such custom as above, the plaintiff's above assertion also is groundless.

Sixth, the plaintiff asserts that the maintenance of this case owned by the defendant is used as a maintenance of 1,266 square meters from the forest land No. 268 No. 268, which is indicated in the annexed drawing, which is owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff bears the management expenses for the maintenance of this case according to the defendant's water area ratio and has the right to recognize sea water through this. However, although the maintenance of this case owned by the defendant is used as a maintenance, even if part of the adjacent land was included in the maintenance of this case, the plaintiff's above assertion is not necessary to further examine it.

Sixth, the Plaintiff owned the salt farms listed in the attached Table 2, which are owned by the Plaintiff, and the maintenance of this case, and only the maintenance of this case was sold at auction to the Defendant, and thus, the owner of salt farms and the owner of salt farms changed. In such a case, the Nonparty, the owner of the above salt farms, should acquire the real right of statutory superficies or similar local rights under the customary law, which he acquired from the above maintenance to the above salt farms, and the Plaintiff, who purchased the above salt farms, also purchased the above salt farms from the above royalties, is entitled to bear the management expenses for the maintenance of this case in accordance with the Defendant’s water area ratio. However, in the above auction, the maintenance of the above case was claimed to have the right to take over sea water through the above management expenses for the maintenance of the case in accordance with the Defendant’s water area ratio. However, even if the salt farms listed in the attached list 2, which was owned by the Plaintiff, were owned by each of the same owners, and even if the maintenance and management of the same person became different due to auction, the Plaintiff’s legal grounds for the above acquisition rights through the salt.

Fifth, the plaintiff agreed with the above non-party to bear management expenses for the maintenance of the water area at the time of the maintenance of this case, and the defendant acquired sea water before salt listed in the attached Table 2 owned by the plaintiff through the above maintenance. The plaintiff succeeded to the above non-party's obligations pursuant to Article 233 of the Civil Code since the non-party's special successor acquired ownership after the above maintenance was awarded a successful bid for the above maintenance. Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has the right to take sea water through the management expenses for the maintenance of this case according to the water area and the right to take over sea water. Thus, even if the plaintiff acquired sea water as a mon, as alleged above, the right to take sea water is a right similar to a real right, and since the plaintiff had already acquired the above sea water as a mon, before March 16, 1978, which became the point of time of time of time of acquisition of the above sea water acquisition right, the plaintiff's right to take over the above sea water has already been claimed as a security by the above plaintiff.

Sixth, since salt farms listed in the [Attachment 2] list owned by the Plaintiff have acquired seawater until now through the maintenance of this case, and manufactured salt without any obstacle, the quantity of the maintenance of this case can be sufficient to supply seawater to the Defendant as well as the salt farms listed in the [Attachment 3] list owned by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant cannot accept seawater without using it for any purpose other than salt farms, and the Defendant interferes with the supply of sea water for the purpose of solely excluding salt farms. This constitutes abuse of rights and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to acquire sea water through the maintenance of this case can not be seen as causing pain or damage to the other party, and it can be seen that the Defendant’s act of maintaining the above 00,000 won and objectively violates social order because it can not be seen that the Defendant’s act of maintaining the above 100,000 won of drinking water was more likely to cause pain or damage to the other party. Accordingly, the lower court’s 200,000 won of drinking water for the purpose of maintaining the 15th and management of sun-dried water.

Sixth, even if all of the above arguments are groundless, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to take over and use sea water before the salt farm listed in the attached Table 2, which is owned by the plaintiff, through the maintenance of this case, at the time of the successful bid for the maintenance of this case. However, there is no agreement with the plaintiff as to the fee, and the plaintiff shall pay every year a sum of 1,443,675 won, which is the amount equivalent to the flood of the farmland improvement association, which is deemed reasonable as the fee, and the plaintiff has the right to take over sea water through the maintenance of this case, but there is no evidence to prove that there was the above agreement with the plaintiff except for the testimony of the old Circuit, the letter of approval, and Kim Jong-Un's testimony, and there is no reason to believe that the above agreement was concluded.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and the original judgment is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Shin Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)