Acquisition of ownership of the building extended in accordance with the registered building

The owner of a building, the structure of which is adjacent to the original registered building so that it can pass through the entrance, stairs, etc. of the previous building, and where it is not necessary to make a new registration as long as the existing building, which is extended differently from the indication on the register, becomes an indivisible body with the existing building, shall acquire the ownership of the part of the extension corresponding to such real estate.

Article 256 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da74 delivered on July 24, 1973

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap5139) in the first instance trial

The defendants' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

A provisional execution may be effected on each part of the original judgment with respect to the name of each building.

As the primary claim, Defendant 1 among the defendant 3, Han River-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 40-4 and 40-503 and 40-503 and the office of cement bricks and coagu-ro 28 square meters and 28 square meters and 26 square meters and 26 square meters and 7 square meters (in the register, 19 square meters and 6 square meters and small 9 square meters in the register), among the defendant 1, among the defendant 1's main claim, the part indicated in the drawing(d) of the annex 1 floor, the defendant 2, the defendant 2, the part indicated in the annex 2 floor map(c) and the 27 square meters and 27 square meters in the case of the defendant 3, the part indicated in the annex 2 floor map(f) and the 5 square meters-4 square meters in the case of the defendant 3

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution shall be declared as preliminary claims, and the defendant 1 among the buildings entered in the main claim shall be released from the part indicated in the drawings of the attached Form 1, and the defendant 2 shall be removed from the part indicated in the drawings of the attached Form 2, and the defendant 3 shall be removed from the part indicated in the drawings of the attached Form 2.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution is sought (additional modification at the trial).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. In light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 (a copy of the building registry), Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 (a provisional disposition decision), evidence Nos. 2-4 (a statement of execution), evidence Nos. 5 (a statement of appraisal), Gap evidence Nos. 6 (a statement of examination), and evidence Nos. 7 (a judgment), for which there is no dispute over the establishment, the building recorded in the purport of claim Nos. 1 is the plaintiff's owner, defendant Nos. 1 is the part indicated in the drawings No. 1 floor(d) and No. 27 square meters in case No. 27 square meters in case No. 27 square meters in case of each part indicated in the drawings No. 2nd floor(c), and defendant No. 3 can recognize that each part of the building owned by each of the defendants is against evidence No. 54 square meters in case of each part of the building owned by each of the defendants).

2. The defendants dispute that the building of this case was newly constructed by the non-party 1 separately from the building owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff could not claim ownership because it is not an original acquisition. Thus, if the plaintiff's testimony and verification results are combined with the non-party 2 and non-party 1's testimony of the court below and the trial witness non-party 2 and the trial witness non-party 1's testimony and examination results in the trial, the building includes the building of this case at the time of the plaintiff's purchase of the building already registered from the non-party 1. The building of this case is recognized as being extended as a single building because the structure was connected to the original registered building and it is recognized that the existing building, which was expanded differently from the original building on the register, is identical with the existing building on the register, the owner of the building at issue, the ownership of the extended part of which is obtained. Therefore, the above defendants' defense is groundless.

3. Next, the Defendants asserted that the costs incurred in the extension cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s request for surrender until they are returned from Nonparty 1, even if the instant building is not an independent building, but a building is not a building independent, and even if it was properly occupied by the Defendants, so the Defendants asserted that the costs incurred in the extension cannot be complied with until they are returned from the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants leased the extension of the instant building to Nonparty 1, the former owner, and possessed it, the lien owner premised on the extension at the expense of the Defendants

4. If so, unless there is any assertion and proof as to the title that the Defendants may otherwise possess with respect to the building, the Defendants are obligated to order the Plaintiff to specify each possession of the building. Thus, the Plaintiff’s objection is justified, and this conclusion is justified, and the judgment of the court below is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89, 93, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal cost, and Article 199 of the same Act with respect to the declaration of provisional execution.

Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)