Even if the owner of a building has acquired a customary superficies on the site, the successor and acquisitor of the building may not claim the superficies to the owner of the site, unless the superficies has been registered.

Even if the owner of a building has acquired a customary superficies on the site, the successor and acquisitor of the building may not claim the superficies against the owner of the site unless the registration of the superficies has been made.

Articles 185 and 186 of the Civil Act, Article 13 of the Decree on Rescue Ship Residents, Article 177 of the Gu Resident Act

J.S. T.S.T.

Dual display

Seoul Civil Site Law and Seoul High Court Decision 63Na40 delivered on July 10, 1964

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant double rupture attorney, it cannot be recognized that there was an error in the judgment on the judgment regarding the establishment of a lease agreement defense, and the argument is nothing more than to criticize the exclusive authority of

(2) Even if Nonparty Seo Young-gu acquired superficies on the building site in general customs as the owner of the building, it cannot be recognized that there was an error in the conclusion of the original judgment that the double acquisition of the superficies cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff who is the owner of the building, unless the superficies is registered.

(3) It is difficult to find that there was an error in the lower judgment that the Plaintiff’s claim on the merits was an abuse of rights, since the instant building, which is the double ownership of the Defendant, is the same as the novels, and even if the market price of the building and site or the living conditions of the original Defendant are the same as the novels, it cannot be readily

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant (appointed party) 5, the original judgment was judged to have sold the real estate to the plaintiff in its reasoning explanation, and as long as the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the plaintiff, the registration shall be presumed to have been made through legitimate procedures, so the burden of proving that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void exists on the ground that the original judgment does not recognize that there was an error in the interpretation of Article 72 of the Residents' Act, and that the application for lawsuit verification was not adopted on the ground that there was no illegality in the original judgment, and that there was no error in the original judgment recognizing that the plaintiff had ownership in the land in question. It is difficult to conclude that there was no error in the original judgment recognizing that the plaintiff had ownership in the land in question.

As to the third ground for appeal

The testimony of the party to the lawsuit cannot be adopted if it is obvious by the explanation of the reasoning of the original judgment that the testimony of the party to the lawsuit is dismissed, and there is an obvious error with this, and it can not be adopted, and it can not be adopted to criticize the whole matters of the fact-finding court as to the preparation of evidence

As to ground of appeal No. 4

Although the court below stated that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in the previous trial and a violation of the rules of evidence in the precedents and all the legal principles in the Gu residents' law, it is not specifically pointed out that any violation of the precedents or any violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of evidence is against the original judgment, and it is not different from that of the original judgment, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal. In addition, in light of the records in Japan, it cannot be concluded that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment, or a violation of the rules of evidence or a misapprehension of the legal principles in the original judgment.

The issue is either groundless or groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.