(a) Criteria for determining whether to comply with the existing building part of the extended building;

(b) requirements for any building to become an accessory to the principal building;

(c) In case where an independent building has been mistakenly constructed as a accessory to the building for auction or as an accessory thereto, the validity of a successful bid on such independent building; and

A. In a case where the extension of the existing building is made, the determination of whether the extension section complies with the existing building should be made by taking into account not only physical structure attached to the existing building, but also economic utility independent of the existing building in terms of its use and function, and the intent of its owner, etc.

(b)in order to become an accessory to a principal building, a relationship must continue to contribute to assist the economic utility of the principal building.

C. Even if the auction court had granted a successful bid on an independent building by conducting a report auction as an accessory to the existing building or an accessory to the existing building, which had been filed by the auction court with respect to a building not deemed as an accessory to the existing building or an appurtenant building, the successful bid on the independent building is null and void as a matter of course, and therefore the successful bidder cannot acquire the ownership of the independent building.

A. Article 256(b) of the Civil Act. Article 100 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu246 Decided November 12, 1985: Supreme Court Decision 84Da269 Decided March 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 73Da298 Decided February 12, 1974; Supreme Court Decision 83Da177 Decided August 23, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Noh Byung-in, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 86Na228 delivered on January 30, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s Attorney are also examined.

1. Whether the extension of the existing building is consistent with the existing building or not shall be determined by taking into account not only the physical structure attached to the existing building but also the intent of the owner of the existing building in terms of its use and function (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu246, Nov. 12, 1985). Furthermore, the court below's decision that a certain building is likely to continuously contribute to assist the economic utility of the main building for the purpose of causing the accessory to the existing building (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu269, Mar. 26, 1985) is reasonable at an interval of 1978. The defendant constructed the existing building adjacent to the existing building at an interval of 17th and that of 197th and that part of the building at an auction at an interval of 21th and that part of the building at an interval of 9th and that part of the building at an end of 197th and that part of the building at an interval of 2th and that part of the building at an auction (see Supreme Court Decision 2002th and the building at an auction).

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 Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)