Effect of a special agreement excluding legal superficies on land which is the object of mortgage.

Article 366 of the Civil Code requires the establishment of superficies for reasons of the public interest for the adjustment of value rights and use rights, so even if a special agreement between the parties to mortgage is made to exclude legal superficies on land which is the object mortgaged by a special agreement between the parties to mortgage, such special agreement is not valid.

Article 366 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 87Na482 delivered on May 20, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant et al. (the supplementary appellate brief is to the extent of supplement since the period of appeal expires) are examined.

Article 366 of the Civil Code requires the establishment of superficies on the ground of the public interest for the adjustment of value rights and use rights, so even if a special agreement between the parties to mortgage is made to exclude legal superficies on the land which is the object of mortgage by a special agreement between the parties to mortgage, such special agreement shall be null and void.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party agreed not to raise an objection against the non-party company's non-party company's non-performance of the right to collateral security against the non-party company's non-party company's non-party property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property property.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)