beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion to the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. Judgment on the establishment of legal superficies 1) Claim 1
The Korea Housing and Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Housing and Commercial Bank”) on November 15, 1990
3) As to the instant site, the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage”).
(2) At the time of establishing the mortgage on the instant building, the Korea Housing & Commercial Bank was aware of such fact, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was sold the auction on the instant building. As such, the statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act is established with respect to the instant building. (2) The statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act arises for the owner of the building when the land and the building owned by the same person come to a different owner due to auction. As such, if the land and the building owned by the same person were to be constructed on the instant building by the landowner at the time of establishing the mortgage on the said land, it did not reach the extent that it can be seen as an independent building in light of social norms.
Even if construction has been developed to the extent that the size and type of the building can be anticipated to be external shape, and thereafter, the establishment of statutory superficies is recognized as independent real estate, such as a minimum pole, roof, and main wall, from the auction procedure to the time the purchaser paid the sale price, by satisfying the building requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29043, Feb. 13, 2004). 3. Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, health class and B’s statement in subparagraph 6 as to the instant case.