The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) on March 27, 2002, the Plaintiff leased the site and its ground buildings from the U.S. Social Support Company (hereinafter “U.S. Social Support Company”) and operated the gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”); (b) on the voluntary auction procedure, the Defendant purchased the site and building of the gas station in this case; (c) on April 11, 2006, while executing the delivery of the site and building of the gas station in this case, the enforcement officer acknowledged the fact that the Defendant’s agent stored the oil remaining in the oil storage tank of the instant gas station in the instant case to I.

Based on such factual basis, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of oil on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the oil stored by the enforcement officer is still in existence at the time of the closing of argument in the lower court.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations regarding the universality and substitution of oil, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. In order to recognize a movable as being attached to a real estate, the determination should be made by taking into account whether the movable is attached and combined to the extent that it is impossible to separate the movable without causing damage to the movable or excessive expenses, and whether the existing real estate in its physical structure, use and function may become an object of separate ownership in transaction with economic utility independent from the existing real estate, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da14959, 14966, May 16, 2003). The proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, which provides for the exception of the ownership of corresponding objects, provides for the exception of the ownership, provides for the exception of the ownership of corresponding objects, has attached only where an attached object has economic value, even if it is a thing attached thereto by the title