[1] The elements of an independent building

[2] The case holding that the building satisfies the requirement as an independent building although the building was not completed yet

[1] In order to be called an independent building as an independent real estate, a minimum pole, roof, and main wall should be placed.

[2] The case holding that although the building was not completed but meets the requirements as an independent building

[1] Article 99(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 99(1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 76Da1677 delivered on April 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu173 delivered on November 11, 1986 (Gong1987, 35), Supreme Court Decision 86Nu173 delivered on November 11, 1986 (Gong1987, 35), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5306 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2144)

Central Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Seo-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2000Na972 delivered on August 23, 2000

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

Based on its employment evidence, the court below recognized that the structure of this case was only a retaining wall construction that prevents the Plaintiff from spreading soil on the ground level 1, 2, concrete frame and ceiling of the 1st floor above the ground level, underground 1, and second floor above the ground level at the time of the successful bid, and that the main wall was not installed, and the construction progress level was approximately about 20 to 30%, and determined that it was difficult to regard the structure of this case as an independent building, and that it was owned by the Plaintiff through the successful bidder of the land along with the land.

However, in order to be considered as an independent real estate, a minimum pole, roof, and main wall are constructed (Supreme Court Decision 94Da53006 delivered on June 14, 1996). In full view of the images of evidence Nos. 8-1 through 24, evidence Nos. 11-2, and evidence Nos. 11-2, and the testimony of the non-party witness of the first instance trial, the structure of this case is completed at the time of the successful bid, and the concrete frame and columns of the second and the first floor up to the first floor at the time of the above successful bid, and the structure of this case can be recognized as having been completed from the front side of the first floor to the left side wall, the rear wall, and the inner wall of the first floor. Thus, the structure of this case can be seen as having been completed only by the minimum roof, main wall, and main wall not rejected by the lower court, and it can be seen as having been the subject of sectional ownership of the first floor (the second floor).

Nevertheless, the court below determined as above on the ground that the main wall was not completed and the construction progress is merely 20-30% and it is difficult to be regarded as an independent building. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence, while misunderstanding the legal principles as to independent building, and therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)