1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the judgment was adopted as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article

Part 4 11-17 is revised as follows. In a case where the mortgager constructed a building on the land without a building after establishing a mortgage on the land without a building, but the land and the ground building owner were different due to auction in order to exercise the security right, the statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act is not recognized and the customary statutory superficies is not recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Ma1262, Dec. 11, 1995). Furthermore, in a case where a mortgage was established on the land before the commencement of the construction of the building by the land owner at the time when the mortgage was established, even if the mortgagee consented to the construction of the building by the land owner at the time of the establishment of a mortgage on the land without a building, such circumstance cannot be known as a third party who is awarded the successful tender of the land. Therefore, if the establishment of statutory superficies is recognized on the ground of such circumstance, legal relations such as harm to the legal stability of the third party who intends to acquire the land should not be established under the statutory superficies or customary law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da26051 delivered on September 5, 2003). No. 5-7 of 5-7, “The Industrial Bank of Korea cannot be deemed to have known the fact that the Plaintiff consented to the construction of each building of this case solely on the ground that the Plaintiff knew the existence of each building of this case,” which read “The existence of each building of this case cannot be viewed as different solely on the ground that the Plaintiff knew the existence of each building of this case.” 2. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable, and the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.