General custom concerning removal of a house, in case where the land and a house owned by the same person are otherwise owned by a donation;

A. In a case where the building site and the house owned by the same person are different from the owners by donation, the owner of the house shall acquire a customary superficies on the building site unless there is an agreement to remove the house by the government.

(b) the duration of the superficies for which the duration has not been determined shall not be the duration of 30, 15, and 5 years in accordance with the classification of the provisions of Article 280 of this Act;

Park In-su

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 62Da170 delivered on February 25, 1963

The special dismissal is dismissed.

The special appeal litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the special appellant.

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 1 is that the plaintiff denied the donation of the building of this case and it is not in writing, even if the donation of the building of this case is recognized, and that the non-party Cho Jong-hee and five other persons were illegally occupied. The defendant's reply that the non-party 2 and the non-party 5 did not pay for July 20 of the same year is due to the existence of the existence of the donation from the liquidator of the head of Sinsan Dong Dong Dong Dong-dong. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's donation of the building of this case was revoked by the declaration of intention by coercion, and that the plaintiff's assertion that

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 2 is that, in a case where the land and the house owned by the same person are different from each other due to lawful causes (e.g., compulsory auction for gift sale) and there is no agreement to remove the house, the owner of the house cannot force the removal of the house because of his/her right, unless there is any agreement to remove the house, the court below held that it is a common custom that the owner of the house cannot force the removal of the house because of his/her right, but this is a precedent of the Joseon High Court of Joseon on September 29, 191

The gist of the ground of appeal No. 3 is that, even if superficies exist on the building of this case, since the duration of superficies is not determined, it shall be five years which is the shortest duration pursuant to Article 281 and Article 280 of the Civil Act, and the summary of the ground of appeal No. 4 is that the defendant may claim termination of superficies since he did not pay rent for not less than two years. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, as the judgment of the court below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below acknowledged the fact that the judgment of failure was confirmed in the lawsuit against the building of this case between the original defendant pursuant to evidence No. 2, etc. of this case, and it cannot be denied ownership in the appellate court procedure of this case, which is a law-oriented trial. The ground of appeal No. 2 shall be interpreted as not only in the case of sale or compulsory auction, but also in the case of donation. The ground of appeal No. 3 is the shortest duration under Article 280 of the Civil Procedure Act when the duration of superficies is not determined under Article 281 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leapap