[1] Requirements for the extension of one building to become a sectioned building (=the independence in structure and use and the classification of owners)

[2] In a case where a registration of change of the indication of a building has been made due to an extension in accordance with the current status of the existing building after the extension, whether it can be deemed that the owner had the intention of sectional ownership (negative), and the validity of registration of change of a mortgage to the effect that the effect of a mortgage established on the existing building

[1] Even though the extension of an existing building registered as a legally one real estate has independence in structure and use that can serve as the object of sectional ownership, it does not immediately mean that the extension is a separate building from the existing building in law, and there is an act of classifying the extension to become a separate building by objectively indicating the sectional owner's intention of sectional ownership.

[2] Where a registration of change of indication of a building has been made due to an extension in accordance with the current status of the existing building after the extension, the owner is deemed to have expressed one intention to make the entire existing building without regard to the extension as a sectioned building, barring any special circumstance. In this case, if the extension part is a constituent part of the existing building or corresponding thereto, and the identity between the existing building and the existing building after the extension is recognized, the registration of change of indication of the building is deemed a valid registration indicating the existing building after the extension. In addition, the effect of the mortgage already established on the existing building extends to the existing building unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Act or by the act of creation, etc., the registration of change cannot be made to the effect that the effect of the mortgage established on the existing building is not effective even if such registration has been made. On the other hand, if the extension part is not a constituent part of the existing building or a separate building and the intention has been made, the registration of change cannot be made to the effect that the registration of change cannot be made to the existing building after the extension.

[1] Article 1 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 215 of the Civil Act, Articles 15 (1) and 101 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 1 of the Multi-Unitial Building Act, Articles 15 (1) and 101 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 358 of the Civil Act, Article 63 of the Registration of Real Estate

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da41214 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1151), Supreme Court Decision 94Da44705, 44712 delivered on August 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2781), Supreme Court Decision 98Da35020 delivered on July 27, 199 (the same purport)

Korea Long-Term Credit Bank (Law Firm Postal Savings Bank, Attorneys Kim Won-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorney Kang Jae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na10115 delivered on June 11, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period are examined together.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 경기 이천군 (주소 1 생략) 지상 철근콘크리트 경량철골위 및 조적조 비니라이트 단층 공장 1,604.4㎡, 철근콘크리트 슬래브지붕 단층 창고 302.4㎡, 철근콘크리트 및 조적조 슬래브지붕 단층 기숙사 828㎡(이하 기존 건물이라 한다)는 소외 동성반도체 주식회사(이하 소외 회사라 한다)의 소유로 있던 중 1991. 4.경 1층 24.84㎡와 2, 3층 각 953.94㎡(이하 증축 부분이라 한다)가 증축되면서 위 지상 철근콘크리트 경량철골위 및 조적조 비니라이트 및 슬래브, 샌드위치판넬지붕 3층 공장, 사무실, 기숙사, 식당 1층 2,456.84㎡(내역 : 철근콘크리트 경량철골위 비니라이트 공장 1,604.4㎡, 철근콘트리트 경량철골위 비니라이트 기숙사, 식당 828㎡, 경량철골위 샌드위치판넬 창고 24.84㎡), 2층 경량철골위 샌드위치판넬 사무실 953.94㎡, 3층 경량철골위 샌드위치판넬 사무실 953.94㎡, 지층 철근콘크리트조 슬래브 창고 302.4㎡(이하 이 사건 건물이라 한다)로 된 사실, 피고는 이 사건 건물이 증축되기 전인 1983. 12. 27.부터 1988. 7. 5.까지 사이에 소외 회사가 피고에 대하여 부담하고 있거나 장래 부담할 모든 채무를 담보하기 위하여 원심 판시 별지 제1목록 기재 부동산(다만 건물 부분은 기존 건물을 말한다) 및 공장에 설치된 기계·기구 등에 대하여 채권최고액 원화 합계 금 2,855,000,000원 및 일본국법화 225,000,000엔, 근저당권자 피고, 채무자 소외 회사로 된 각 근저당권설정등기를 경료하고, 위 증축으로 인하여 1991. 4. 19. 기존 건물의 등기부상 표시가 이 사건 건물로 변경된 후인 1992. 4. 30. 기존 근저당권의 효력이 증축 부분 1,932.72㎡(1층 창고 24.84㎡＋2, 3층 사무실 각 953.94㎡)에 미친다는 내용의 변경등기를 경료한 사실, 원고는 1989. 8. 31.부터 1991. 12. 5.까지 사이에 소외 회사가 원고에 대하여 부담하고 있거나 장래 부담할 모든 채무를 담보하기 위하여 위 각 부동산 및 기계, 기구 등에 대하여 채권최고액 합계 금 11,050,000,000원, 근저당권자 원고, 채무자 소외 회사로 된 각 근저당권설정등기를 경료하였는데, 위 건물의 등기부상 표시가 증축으로 인하여 위와 같이 변경된 후인 1991. 5. 16. 위 각 근저당권 중 그 전에 설정된 부분의 효력이 위 증축 부분에 미친다는 내용의 변경등기를 경료한 사실, 피고는 1996. 1.경 수원지방법원 여주지원 96타경(사건번호 1 생략)호로 위 각 근저당권에 기하여 소외 회사가 피고에 대하여 부담하고 있던 채무금 8,888,752,930원 중 일부인 금 4,547,900,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 청구금액으로 하여 위 별지 제1목록 기재 부동산 및 공장에 설치된 기계, 기구 등(이하 이 사건 경매목적물이라 한다)에 대한 경매를 신청하였고, 이에 따라 개시된 부동산임의경매절차에서 원고는 소외 회사에 대한 채권 금 14,377,386,837원, 소외 1 등은 소외 회사에 대한 임금채권 합계 금 198,024,995원을 각 자신들의 채권으로 신고하여 그 배당을 요구한 사실, 이 사건 경매목적물은 감정평가 가액이 합계 금 5,366,246,720원(위 증축 부분 중 2, 3층 각 사무실의 감정평가 가액은 합계 금 917,690,280원)이었으나, 수차 유찰된 뒤 1997. 2. 4. 금 3,430,000,000원에 낙찰되었고, 경매법원은 같은 해 4. 24. 배당기일을 열어 위 경락대금에서 집행비용 금 22,096,860원을 공제하고 남은 금 3,407,903,140원 중 임금채권자들인 소외 1 등에게 1순위로 금 198,024,995원을, 피고에게 나머지 금 3,209,878,145원 전액을 배당하는 배당표를 작성하였는데(피고에 대한 위 배당액은 피고의 위 각 근저당권의 피담보채무액 범위 내이다), 원고는 위 배당기일에 피고의 배당액 중 금 582,771,312원에 대하여 이의를 제기한 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 위 증축 부분 중 2, 3층 각 사무실은 기존 건물과는 별개의 독립된 건물이므로 그에 관하여 먼저 근저당권의 효력변경등기를 경료한 원고가 나중에 효력변경등기를 경료한 피고에게 우선권이 있어 위 경락대금 중 위 2, 3층 부분의 매각으로 인한 금액은 원고에게 배당되어야 한다는 원고의 주장에 대하여, 이 사건 증축 부분이 구분소유의 객체가 될 수 있는 별개의 독립된 건물이라면 기존 건물의 표시를 이 사건 건물로 변경하는 등기를 경료하였다고 하더라도 기존 건물의 등기부에 경료된 증축 부분의 등기는 1부동산 1등기용지의 원칙상 무효의 등기로서 말소되어야 하는 운명에 있으므로 그에 기초한 근저당권의 효력변경등기도 아무런 효력을 가질 수 없고, 따라서 위 근저당권의 효력변경등기만으로 기존 건물과는 별개의 독립 건물인 증축 부분에 대하여도 기존 근저당권의 효력이 미침을 전제로 하는 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다고 판단하였다.

Even if the extension of an existing building registered as one real estate by law has independence in structure and use that can be the object of sectional ownership, this does not immediately mean that the extension is a separate building from the existing building under the law, and the owner's sectional ownership of the extension part in order to become a separate building must perform the act of classification objectively indicated. Thus, in the case where a change of building indication has been made due to an extension in accordance with the current state of the existing building after the extension, as in the case of this case, the owner is not the sectional owner but the owner intended to have the existing whole building after the extension as one building, unless there are special circumstances.

In this case, if the identity between the existing building and the existing building after the extension is recognized, the registration of change of indication of the existing building shall be deemed a valid registration to indicate the existing building after the extension, and the effect of the mortgage already established on the existing building shall also extend to the extension unless otherwise expressly provided for in the law or agreed on by the act of creation, etc., so it is not possible to make a registration of change of mortgage to the effect that the effect of the mortgage established on the existing building is excessive to the extension part, and even if the registration of establishment has been made, it shall not be effective. Meanwhile, if the extension part is not a component of the existing building or a separate building that is not consistent with the composition of the existing building and its intention to make it a sectioned part, registration of change of indication of the existing building cannot be made as a sectioned part. Thus, even if the registration of change is made to the effect that the effect of the mortgage established on the existing building should not be affected by the extension part, which is a separate building.

Therefore, the court below's decision is just in that the extension of this case is an independent building from the existing building just because it has independence capable of becoming the object of sectional ownership, if it is deemed to be a separate building from the existing building. However, if the extension of this case is a separate building as a result of the plaintiff's above assertion, the registration of changes to the purport that the effect of each right to collateral security established on the existing building of this case is excessive to the extension part, as alleged in the plaintiff's above, the effect of each right to collateral security cannot be affected by the extension part, and there is no error

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that, even if the extension part of this case was consistent with the existing building, the non-party company obtained facility funds from the plaintiff and constructed the extension part of this case, and completed registration of change of the right to collateral security for the above loan, and the defendant was aware of such fact and completed registration of change of the right to collateral security, so it shall be deemed that the defendant made an explicit or implied agreement that the effect of the existing right to collateral security should not extend to the above extension part, or ratified the above disposal act of the non-party company as to the above extension part. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above extension part takes priority over the defendant's right to collateral security, it shall not be deemed that the defendant made an agreement or ratification with the above contents, and it shall not be deemed that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and in light of the records, it is just in the court below's above disposition, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law such as misunderstanding of

In addition, the court below held that if the extension of this case was consistent with the existing building, the effect of the plaintiff's existing right to collateral security extends to the above extension part, so it cannot be viewed as unjust enrichment from the successful bid price for the above extension part. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to unjust enrichment.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)