Whether the kitchen extended in addition to the outer range of the existing building conforms to the existing building in addition to the kitchen and room (affirmative)

In addition to the outer agreement of 21 p.m. 8 p. 21 p.m., in a case where the existing building, the mentmen's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's mentor's and apap mentor's 18 p.m., the extended building would correspond to

Article 256 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1

Defendant 2

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na365, 366 (Counterclaim), October 10, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the records, the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant; hereinafter the plaintiff) claimed that the real estate in this case was actually owned by the plaintiff and claimed that the registration under the name of the defendant was invalid due to anti-social legal act, and then changed it thereafter (see each claim and claim for change of cause as of March 19, 79). As to the defendant 2 on the premise that the registration under the name of the defendant 2 is valid, the registration under the name of the defendant 2 was sought for the transfer registration based on the sale and purchase with the defendant 1 (the plaintiff Counterclaim) on the ground that the registration under the name of the defendant 2 was made for the purpose of securing the claim against the defendant 2 (the preliminary registration was made for the purpose of securing the claim against the defendant 2), if the registration under the name of the defendant 1 was made based on the disguised sale and purchase with the defendant 2, the registration under the name of the defendant 1 was based on the subrogation of the debt / the first instance court's fifth argument) and there is no clear date to submit the defense that the registration under the above defendant 1's counterclaim is unlawful.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the records, since the real estate of this case is registered as a result of the registration, it is clear that the plaintiff had been a 18th squareous, 18th square, 21th square, 8th square, and 9th square, 18th square, 18th square, 21th square, and 4th square, which is currently in possession of the plaintiff when the plaintiff owned it, it is obvious that the plaintiff had a 9th square, in addition to the outer limit of the above existing building, the extended 18th square, and the extended building has a 1 unit of house because the whole building corresponds to the existing building, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation. As long as the court below recognized as such, since the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff as the combination of the part occupied by the plaintiff and the part occupied by the plaintiff, the registration becomes effective as a matter of law, and there is no basis for the misapprehension of legal principles as to the independence of the building.

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

Even if the lower court, which was a fact-finding court, was unable to pay a debt by the time of the closing of argument because it was not well aware of the law, and lost by the lower court, such reason does not constitute a ground for granting the lower judgment, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)