Whether the successful bidder of the existing building acquires ownership of the extension portion which is not assessed as the object of auction (affirmative)

Where a building is extended, if the extended part is consistent with the original building and it has no utility as an independent independent object entirely separate from the original building, the successful bidder shall acquire the ownership of the corresponding part even though the preservation registration was completed for the extended part and it was not assessed as the object of auction at the auction procedure for the original building.

Articles 256, 358, and 187 of the Civil Act; Article 640 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Ma639 Decided June 15, 1967, 68Ma140 Decided May 27, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 69Ma80 Decided August 26, 1969

Korea Exchange Bank

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, Attorneys Lee Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-Appellee-Appellee-gu Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3965, 79Na3978 (Independent Party Intervention) decided October 16, 1980

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to Section 1:

In light of the records, since the extended building in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "built building") in this case, which is not an independent building, is consistent with the existing factory building (hereinafter referred to as the "existing factory building" in this case), which is not a separate building, and is consistent with the existing factory building in the judgment (hereinafter referred to as the "existing factory building"), so long as the existing factory is registered, the preservation registration in the name of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 concerning the extended building is null and void by double registration, and as the provisional registration in this case is based on this claim of Defendant 4 as well as the registration in the provisional registration in this case is asserted as invalid. However, as at the time of the auction of the existing factory, the plaintiff's assertion is excluded from auction because it still remains in the non-party Pungan Industrial Corporation, which is constructed, the plaintiff has the right to request the above non-party company to cancel the registration of establishment of the existing factory in this case from the above company, and as long as the plaintiff's right to request the extension of the existing factory in this case is null and void.

With respect to Section 2:

If the extended part of the building is consistent with the original building and has no utility as an independent independent object entirely separate from the original building, the successful bidder shall be deemed to acquire the ownership of the corresponding part of the building as the validity of the conforming legal principles, the validity of collateral security, etc., and the validity of the auction, even though the building was not evaluated as an object of auction at the auction procedure, and as such, it shall not have the utility as an independent building entirely separate from the building of the existing building, as determined later. Accordingly, the court below is just in holding that the extended building has acquired its ownership with the validity of collateral security and auction by the successful bidder, even if the building was not assessed as an object of auction at the auction procedure, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles, inconsistent reasoning, or lack of reason, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the precedent pointing out this case is not proper.

With respect to Article 3:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff extended money to the above non-party company as stated in its reasoning and completed the establishment registration of mortgage on the existing building site and other property constructed thereon under Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act. After that, the non-party company constructed the existing building on the first floor, which is an annex to the existing building, with the plaintiff's consent, with the construction of the extension of this building on the ground that it is connected to the existing building and the second and third floors are installed separately from the entrance door to the center of the building, but the building is adjacent to the factory of this case, etc., and the building was used or connected to this part of the existing building, and the building's building's building's building's building site and other property was constructed across the industrial area under the Export Development Act, and it cannot be used separately from the existing building's construction of the existing building's own building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's new building's existing building's existing building's new building's new building's new building's existing building's new building's new building's new building's existing building's new building's new building's existing building's new building's existing building's new building's existing building's new building's new building's new building'

The precedent that points out the theory of lawsuit is a case that can be seen as a separate independent building, and it is not appropriate to this case. The argument is also groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)