Effect of the mortgage established on the existing building for the extension of the building;

Where an extension has been made on the existing building on which a mortgage was established, if the extension between the time of the extension and the time of the creation of the mortgage is not recognized as an independent building and it is recognized as the corresponding building to the existing part and it appears to be a single building whose identity is maintained throughout the whole building after the extension, the mortgage on the existing building shall naturally extend to that part.

Articles 358 and 256 of the Civil Act

Notification of 68Ma140 decided May 27, 1968 (Kakaddd. 7754; 16B citizen68; 358(5)364); and 69Ma80 decided August 26, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 745; Supreme Court Decision 17No375 decided May 7, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 358(8)364)

Plaintiff

west-unit agricultural cooperatives

Seoul District Court Incheon District Court (76Gahap28)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

원판결을 취소한다. 인천시 동구 송림동 (지번 생략) 대 108평 9홉 지상목조와즙 평가건 점포 1동 건평 27평 1홉 9작중 별지도면표시 ㅌ,ㅇ,ㅈ,ㅊ,ㅁ＇,ㅂ＇,ㄹ＇,ㅍ＇,ㅌ의 각점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (가)표시부분 세면벽돌조 스레트즙 건평 4평 8홉 9작 및 동도면표시 ㅂ＇,ㅁ＇,ㅅ,ㅂ,ㅂ'의 각점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (나)표시부분 세면벽돌조 스레트즙 건평 8홉 6작은 원고의 소유임을 확인한다. 피고는 원고에게 위 (가)(나)표시 건물부분을 명도하고, 1974.11.8.부터 위 (가)표시부분을 명도할 때까지 월 금 30,000원의 비율에 따른 금원을 지급하라. 소송비용은 1, 2심 모두 피고의 부담으로 한다라는 판결 및 위 건물명도와 금원지급부분에 대한 가집행선고

1. According to Gap evidence No. 1 without dispute over the establishment, it can be acknowledged that the registration of alteration of the defendant's title transfer was made on May 1, 1974 as the receipt of support from the Seoul District Court Incheon District Court, No. 13466 on April 15, 1974, and the construction of the above building was made on December 12, 1974 at the same place as of December 12, 1974 and jugu 1, 2777phobbes, 177, 177, 177, 1.

2. The plaintiff was originally constructed by the plaintiff, and was Hobbebbe, at the time of the new construction, at the time of the construction, the plaintiff borrowed 2,000,000 won from the agricultural cooperative in Busancheon-gun on June 29, 1972, and registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage association with respect to the above building. Since the plaintiff failed to repay the above debts, the above non-party union's successful bid price was paid on January 29, 1974 when the plaintiff did not pay the above debts, and acquired ownership and completed the ownership transfer registration after the purchase of the above building and completed the registration of the ownership transfer on December 12, 1974, the non-party union still purchased ownership of the above part of the building at the time of extension of the right to purchase the above part of the building at the time of the extension of the right to purchase the right to purchase the above part of the building at the time of expiration of 13,000 square meters.

In the case of extension to the existing building on which a mortgage has been established, if between the time of extension before and after the commencement of the mortgage is not recognized as an independent building, and if the extension is recognized as an accessory to the existing building and the whole building is deemed to be a single building maintained its identity through the completion of the extension, the mortgage on the existing building shall be deemed to be naturally effective on the extension.

그런데 원심증인 이계룡, 박장원, 전용국의 각 증언과 원심감정인 이홍표의 감정결과 및 원심의 현장검증결과를 종합하면, 원고가 스스로 축조하였다고 주장하는 이 사건 증축부분인 청구취지 기재의 각 건물부분은 도합 건평 5평 7홉 5작으로서 그중 도로쪽의 증축부분인 별지도면 표시 ㅂ＇,ㅁ＇,ㅅ,ㅂ,ㅂ'의 각점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (나)표시부분 8홉 6작과 ㅈ,ㅊ,ㅁ＇,ㅂ＇,ㅈ의 각점을 순차로 연결한 부분 2홉 1작은 각기 기존건물의 도로쪽 전면벽이 종전에는 처마에서 서까래 안쪽으로 있던 것을 서까래 끝까지 약 70센치미터가량 밖으로 내어서 기존건물의 서까래와 기둥들을 이용하여 벽돌을 쌓고 빈지문을 달고 스레트로 지붕을 이어 달아 증축한 것이고, 한편 동 도면표시 ㅌ,ㅇ,ㅈ,ㅂ＇,ㄹ＇,ㅍ,ㅌ의 각점을 순차로 연결한 선내 4평 6홉 8작은 기존건물의 동쪽 서까래에서부터 그 옆집벽위에 보를 연결하고 그 위에 지붕을 얹어 증축한 사실(위의 각 증축부분중 (나)표시부분을 제외하고 2홉 1작과 4평 6홉 8작을 합한 것이 청구취지기재의 (가)표시부분 4평 8홉 9작에 해당된다), 피고가 위 건물을 인도 받은뒤 1974.11.경 원고가 증축한 빈지문을 떼어내고 벽돌로 담을 쌓고 유리창을 설치하였으며 그밖에 건물의 내부등을 사무실용도에 맞도록 현재의 모습대로 수리한 사실은 인정할 수 있고, 갑 7호증의 1 내지 3, 동 8호증 내지 12호증, 13호증의 1,2, 동 16호증 내지 18호증의 각 기재내용은 위 인정을 달리할 증거가 되지못하며 그밖에 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts, all of the above extension parts asserted by the plaintiff are consistent with the existing building even if it appears to be the structure of the building or for economic purposes, and it is recognized as a single building having the identity after the extension, and only the said extension part does not appear to constitute a separate building independent of the existing building.

Therefore, as the plaintiff's assertion, the right to collateral security established on the existing building of this case is implemented, and if the existing building of this case was sold to the non-party Incheon City Agricultural Cooperative and the non-party association acquired its ownership, the validity of the right to collateral security or the right to collateral security shall be deemed to have been naturally effective on the part of the above existing building and the part of the above extension, which is recognized as constituting part of the building at the time, as well as the right to collateral security, and the right to collateral security shall not be deemed to have been lost.

3. Therefore, the part of the extension of this case is separate independent, and the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit based on the premise that it is owned by the plaintiff shall be dismissed without any need to examine the remainder. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff's appeal with the same conclusion is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who lost

Judges Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)