The purport of the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, which provides for an exception to the reversion of ownership of corresponding articles.

The provisions of the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, which provides for an exception to the reversion of ownership of corresponding objects, shall be based on the existence of the economic utility of the original owner of the attached goods, in case where there is no economic value even if the attached goods are separated from the attached goods and have an economic value, if there is no economic value, it shall be separated from the purport that the attached goods do not affect the rights of others.

Attorney Tae Chang Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Industrial Bank of Korea (Attorney Hong Il-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na2480 delivered on September 25, 1974

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The first and second grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff company received a supply of and demand for the extension of the above company's Gyeyang-gun factory building from the defendant Yangyang-gun Co., Ltd. on Sep. 15, 1969 in order to conduct construction of approximately 80% with most materials and expenses, and suspended such extension for the same reason as the judgment of the court below, and did not deliver the above non-party company or its successor to the above non-party company or its successor, and the defendant bank did not grant money to the non-party company prior to this case, and received a voluntary auction on the site, building and other property of the above non-party company, the above extension part of this case which was the object of the non-party mortgage was first considered to be an object of the above branch factory building and was sold to the non-party corporation, the creditor company and the defendant bank paid the price for the extension to the non-party corporation on Feb. 12, 1972, it could not be viewed that the above extension part of the plaintiff's ownership or the above building was in accord with the above non-party ownership structure.

However, the provision of the proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, which provides for the exception to the reversion of ownership of the attached articles, shall be interpreted to mean that the attached article belongs to the ownership of the original real estate owner if there is no economic value even if it is separated from the attached article to the effect that it does not affect the rights of another person (see Supreme Court Decision 4292No. 574, Mar. 31, 1960). The determination of this economic value shall be based on the existence of the economic utility of the attached article under the general social norms, and the first instance court and the lower court's result of each on-site verification before the pleadings, in full view of the purport of the arguments, the extended article in this case shall only be extended to use it as part of the snow factory as the expansion of reinforced concrete save and reinforced concrete 2nd, 1,396 sake sagu and sake sake sagu, a factory, and shall not be seen as being separated from the existing building's office, office level, warehouse and other independent buildings and independent buildings.

If so, even if the plaintiff in this case deemed that he attached the above extension portion by his title, it would simultaneously be consistent with the new factory building and it would belong to the owner's ownership.

Therefore, the original judgment, which has different opinion, shall be deemed to have influenced the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the conformity of real estate.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the defendant's failure in the original judgment is reversed, and the original court is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices for a new trial and determination.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)