(a) The case holding that it acquired by prescription superficies on the site of a building by occupying the site of the building for a period of 20 years in peace and openly and openly to possess the building;

B. Whether the lower court’s measure is unlawful in a case where there is no assertion that the term of superficies acquired by prescription has expired

(a) The case holding that it acquired by prescription superficies on the site of a building by occupying the site of a building for a period of 20 years in peace and openly for the purpose of owning the building;

B. In light of the structure of a building recognized by the court below, since it can be seen that the duration of the superficies for ownership corresponds to the duration of superficies under Article 280 (1) (v) of the Civil Act, even if the acquisition of superficies is recognized, it cannot be deemed unlawful merely because the court below did not disclose that the duration of the superficies acquired by prescription has been extinguished due to the expiration of the duration, unless there is an assertion that the acquisition of superficies

(b)Article 248(1) of the Civil Act (Article 245(1)); Article 280, Article 281 of the Civil Act;

Attorney Kim Yong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 92Na2984 delivered on January 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the whole land of this case was owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were dead on July 10, 1918, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who were his children, were dead on September 20, 1968, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 6, who were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's property.

In addition, examining the records, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the extension of the building site of this case should be removed and the area of the building site of this case should be reduced because there is no evidence to support that the building site of this case increased due to the extension as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law such as not exercising the right of explanation like the theory of lawsuit, or in incomplete deliberation or in violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, in light of the structure of the building of this case recognized by the court below, the superficies for the ownership of this case constitutes superficies of 30 years under Article 280 (1) 1 of the Civil Code, so even if the acquisition of the superficies is recognized by the defendant, it cannot be deemed unlawful merely because the court below did not disclose that the term of the superficies acquired by prescription was several years, which the defendant acquired by prescription, was extinguished even if the acquisition of the superficies is recognized by the defendant. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)