(a) Whether the successful bidder acquires the ownership of the extension portion in case where the extension portion corresponding to the existing building is not assessed as the object of auction at the auction procedure for the existing building (affirmative);

B. Where the intervenor filed an application for intervention by an independent party on the ground that the extension was his/her own ownership in a lawsuit claiming surrender of ownership on the extension of the building, but the result of the deliberation on the merits is deemed to have been owned by the plaintiff on the ground that the extension was in conformity with the existing building

(a) As long as the extension portion of the existing building does not have the utility as an independent object separate from the existing building because it complies with the existing building, the right to collateral security against the existing building also takes effect on the extension portion consistent with Article 358 of the Civil Act, so even if the auction procedure for the existing building was not assessed as the object of auction, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the corresponding extension portion

B. In a lawsuit seeking an order based on the ownership of the extended part of the building by the plaintiff, where the intervenor filed an application for intervention by an independent party on the ground that the extended part is his own ownership, the right claimed by the plaintiff and the right claimed by the intervenor are incompatible with the right claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, even if the extended part, as a result of the deliberation on the merits, became owned by the plaintiff as a result of the deliberation on the merits, and it is judged that the part was not owned by the intervenor, it is only a ground for the plaintiff's request without any justifiable reason,

A. Article 256 of the Civil Act, Article 358 of the Civil Act. Article 72(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2757,2758 decided Nov. 10, 1981 (Gong1982,43) (Gong1982,43) 90Da11967 decided Apr. 12, 1991 (Gong1991,1370) 80Da362,363 decided Jul. 22, 1980 (Gong1980,13075)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Intervenor of an independent party

Incheon District Court Decision 91Na4454, 4874 decided May 29, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the records, the court below found that the floor area of the existing building, which was registered as preservation of ownership, in the name of the defendant 1, is 64.65m of the existing building, 27.4m of the wall 1, 27.4m of the existing building, is extended to 3rd floor, and used as one room, one room, and one bath room, but the above extended part is deemed to be integrated with the above existing building and 3rd floor of the existing building, and it cannot be seen as belonging to the plaintiff 47m of the existing building in accordance with the proviso of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is recognized that there is no other method of entry, other than the toilet and the kitchen's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's 9m of the existing building's 19m of the existing building (the above 3m of the existing building's house's house's house's house's 97m of the existing building's house'.

(2) As to the Intervenor’s grounds of appeal:

The court below determined that the application for intervention was unlawful solely on the ground that the part for the above extension was consistent with the above existing building and belongs to the plaintiff because it was not an independent building, and the part for the above extension was owned by the plaintiff and the defendant, and it was not possible for the plaintiff to claim confirmation of ownership, since the part for the above extension was owned by the plaintiff to be owned by the defendant on the ground that it was not an independent building, and it was not possible for the plaintiff to claim confirmation of ownership on the premise that the above extension was an independent building.

However, the intervenor himself/herself who applied for intervention in the case on the ground that he/she was one's own building, is in a relationship between the rights asserted by the plaintiff and the rights asserted by the intervenor. However, as a result of the deliberation on the merits, the above three floors were owned by the plaintiff as belonging to the existing building and they did not belong to the plaintiff. However, it should be deemed that the plaintiff's claim is merely a ground without any justifiable reason and the application for intervention does not become illegal.

Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the application for intervention in the instant case was unlawful is erroneous. However, as seen above, the Intervenor’s claim on the merits of the instant case should be dismissed on the ground that the third floor was not owned by the Intervenor, but in the instant case where only the Intervenor appealed (the Defendant filed an appeal, but only appealed against the Plaintiff) and cannot render a judgment dismissing the claim more unfavorable than this, by reversing the lower court’s dismissal judgment. In so doing, it cannot be said that there was an error of incomplete deliberation in the lower court’s judgment, and the remaining appeal discussed on the merits of the instant case cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

(3) Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.