(a) Criteria for determining whether the existing building of the extended building complies with it;

(b) Scope of the buildings which form the accessory to the mortgaged real estate having the effect of mortgage; and

A. Whether the extension section complies with the existing building should be determined by considering not only physical structure attached to the existing building, but also whether the extension section can be an object of separate ownership in the transaction with economic utility independent of the existing building in terms of its use and function, and the intent of its owner.

B. "Accessories of mortgaged real estate which has the effect of mortgage" means accessories as stipulated in Article 100 of the Civil Code. It means that a building must contribute to the commercial use of main thing in order to bring the accessory to the main building. Here, the term "the commercial use of main thing" means making the main thing to fulfill its economic utility, and even though the main thing is offered habitually to the owner or user, it is not an accessory to the main thing itself.

A. Article 256 of the Civil Act; Articles 100 and 358 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da11967 delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1370), 92Da33541 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3294) (Gong1992, 3294), 92Da2672, 26789 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193, 428). Supreme Court Order 66Ma222 delivered on October 5, 196 (Gong143, 145) (Gong145) Decided March 26, 1985.

Korea Exchange Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-apon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na26610 delivered on January 19, 1994

Of the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, the part of the objection against the successful bid price of the third building listed in the attached list attached to the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is forwarded to

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to compliance

In the event of an extension of a building, whether the extended part complies with the existing building shall not only be the physical structure attached to the existing building, but also be the object of ownership separate from the existing building in terms of its use and function, and shall be determined by considering whether the extended part can be the object of ownership separate from the existing building in trade with economic utility in terms of its use and function (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da2672, 26789, Dec. 8, 1992; 90Da11967, Apr. 12, 1991; 90Da11967, Aug. 23, 198).

However, as legally determined by the court below, the non-party 4 and 5 constructed the above 4 and 5 buildings at the time of the original adjudication for the production of the leather Group, and added them to them using the North wall and the south wall of the first building, and installed machinery used as part of the manufacturing process of the leather Group as stated in its holding, and if the size or appraisal price of the above 4 and 5 buildings is lower than the size and appraisal price of the first building as stated in its holding, the above 4 and 5 building was completed in conformity with the above 1 building at the time of the extension, even if not only the physical structure of the above 4 and 5 building but also the economic utility, it seems difficult for the court below to become an object of separate ownership independent of the transaction, and therefore, the court below's decision that the above 4 and 5 buildings were just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the process.

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to accessory property

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on its macroficial evidence, constructed a new three buildings connected to the above 1 to the above 3 building and registered as an appurtenant building to the above 1 building, and established a collateral security right pursuant to Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act as to the 1,2 and part of the above 3 building as part of the above 1,2, and added a leather processing business, and constructed a joint collateral security right pursuant to Article 7 of the above 1,2 and factory machinery and equipment in the defendant's future to simplify the business type into leather processing business and expand the size of finished products, and then registered as an appurtenant building to the above 3 building as stated in its reasoning, and established a collateral security right pursuant to Article 7 of the Factory Mortgage Act as to the above 1,3 and part of the above 3 building as part of the above 1,400 building and the remaining part of the 3,000 1,000 0,000 1,000 2,01.

However, the term "mortgaged real property" means an accessory building with the meaning of Article 100 of the Civil Act, which must contribute to the common use of main body. Here, the term "public use of main body" means a building which has the economic efficiency of its main body. Even if main body is commonly offered to the owner or user, things which are not directly related to the main body's own utility are not accessories (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu600, Aug. 23, 198; 84Meu269, Mar. 26, 198). Since the above building was constructed on the same lot number as the object of auction, it cannot be deemed as an accessory building of the above 3rd building, and its structure cannot be deemed as an independent building or building for the purpose of auction, and its size and size cannot be determined by the court below as an independent building's determination of its size and size as an independent building for the purpose of auction by 200/160, Mar. 26, 1986).

Therefore, among the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part of the objection against the successful bid price of the above third building is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed and the costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)