Whether the effect of a title of debt ordering the delivery of land extends to the buildings constructed on the ground or trees planted on the ground;

The validity of a title of debt ordering the delivery of land is not until the delivery of a building constructed or planted trees on the ground, but it is not possible to deliver to the creditor only the possession of the land without keeping the above building or trees as it is. As for the land on the ground or where a tree is planted on the ground, unless there is a separate title of debt ordering the delivery, removal, etc. of the ground, the mere title of debt ordering the delivery of the land cannot be executed.

Articles 504 and 690 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 80Ma528 Dated December 26, 1980

A school juristic person Geumsung(Seoul)

Seoul Central District Court Order 86Ra317 Dated September 29, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The validity of the debt title ordering the transfer of land does not extend to the delivery of buildings constructed or planted trees on the ground, and it is not possible to keep the above buildings or trees intact and deliver only the possession of the land to the creditor. Thus, the debt title indicating the transfer of the land cannot be executed, unless there is a separate debt title ordering the transfer, removal, etc. of the land on the ground, for the land on which the building is constructed or the trees are planted, unless there is a separate debt title ordering the transfer, removal, etc. of the above ground.

Therefore, in this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the law of refusing the execution of the land because the Calals who received the delegation of the execution based on the name of debt to deliver 669 square meters prior to Dongdaemun-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) to the Re-Appellant was 20 years old trees or 170 trees on the land, and it is impossible to execute the delivery of the land. The ground for re-appeal to the effect that there is a misapprehension of legal principles does not fall under any of the cases stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)