A. Criteria for determining whether a building is a solid building under Article 280(1)1 of the Civil Act

B. Requirements for application of Article 281(2) of the Civil Act

(c) Whether to acquire legal superficies under customary law for owning an unauthorized or unregistered building;

A. Whether to approve a solid building as prescribed by Article 280(1)1 of the Civil Act ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the physical and chemical external strength of the building, the low resistance to fire, or the difficulty of dismantling the building.

B. Article 281(2) of the Civil Act applies only where the parties agree on the creation of superficies, but only where the type and structure of the structure on the land for which superficies are to be established is not objectively determined without setting the duration thereof, and where the type and structure of the structure of the structure on the land for which superficies are to be established are not determined objectively, even if the building without permission or unregistered, it does not apply where the type and structure of the building are determined, and in such a case, the duration should be determined in accordance

(c) Where land and buildings belonging to the same person become different owners due to sale, donation, compulsory sale by official auction, public sale under the National Tax Collection Act, etc., the owner of the building shall acquire customary statutory superficies on the site for the purpose of removing the building unless otherwise stipulated that the owner of the building remove the building, and the building shall not be an unauthorized building, unregistered building, or unregistered building unless it satisfies the requirements as a building;

(a) Article 280(1)1(b) of the Civil Act; Article 281(2)(c) of the Civil Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 63Ka11 delivered on May 9, 1963

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 87Na154 delivered on August 18, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to paragraph 1:

The court acknowledged any fact based on the appraiser's appraisal, and it does not need to be bound by the appraiser's judgment on the fact of recognition, and it does not require a solid building approval as prescribed by Article 280 (1) 1 of the Civil Act. The court below acknowledged that the building of this case has a physical, chemical external power, resistance to fire, or difficulty in dismantling a building. Thus, the court below determined that the building of this case falls under the building of this case without any evidence as provided by Article 280 (1) 1 of the Civil Act, considering the appraiser's appraisal result, the result of the court below's verification and the whole purport of the oral argument, based on cement block and sloping on the solid ground of this case's building of this case, he saw it into cement block and cement block, and completes cement mortar, and the roof is a simplified food store constructed on the top of the building of this case which is composed of cement series, and contrary to the above appraiser's judgment, it does not admit that the building of this case constitutes a building of this case without any justifiable evidence.

With respect to the second ground:

As a result, the assertion is an unregistered building, and the type and structure of the building at the time the Defendant acquired a statutory superficies under customary law as to the instant building site was not specified. Thus, the duration of superficies in such a case shall be 15 years as stipulated under Article 280(1)2 of the Civil Act pursuant to Article 281(2) of the same Act. However, even though the Plaintiff asserted as above in this lawsuit, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duration of the customary superficies, thereby neglecting its determination.

However, Article 281 (2) of the Civil Act applies only to the case where the type and structure of the structure to own the building on the land where the superficies is to be established without setting its duration are not objectively confirmed, and in this case, the type and structure of the building is not applied even if the building without permission or unregistered, and in such a case, the duration of the building should be determined pursuant to Article 281 (1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 63Do11 delivered on May 9, 1963). Further, the court below determined that the building of this case falls under the "debrising, brick, brick, or similar building" as stipulated in Article 280 (1) 1 of the Civil Act, and thus its duration should be deemed 30 years. Accordingly, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the duration of statutory superficies or the omission of legal principles as to the duration of legal superficies under customary law.

The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

In a case where land and a building belonging to the same person owned by the same person become different owners due to sale, gift, compulsory sale by official auction, public sale under the National Tax Collection Act, etc., the owner of the building shall acquire the legal superficies under customary law for the removal of the building for the possession of the building, unless otherwise stipulated that the owner of the building remove the building. Since the building meets the requirements as a building, it shall not be an unauthorized building, unregistered building, or unregistered building (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da62 delivered on September 22, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 63Da62 delivered on September 22, 1964).

The court below is just in holding that since the land and the buildings in this case were owned by the defendant, and the ownership of only the land was exceeded to the non-party company on March 17, 1971, and at least the defendant acquired legal superficies under customary law as to the land in this case, which constitutes the site of the building in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of legal superficies

In the end, the argument is nothing more than an error in the judgment of the court below.

The assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)