The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In case where the existing building is destroyed and the new building is built, even if there is a mutual similar surface in materials, location, structure, and other sides of the building, the newly constructed building cannot be deemed to be the same building as the one where the new building has been destroyed and then its registration cannot be deemed to be valid as a registration for the new building; and

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2012Ma1235, Oct. 29, 2012). Therefore, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the old building cannot be deemed valid on the ground that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on the old building was conducted on the registry of the previous building with intent to establish a collateral security on the old building.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da39184, Mar. 31, 1992). Also, as one of the requirements for establishing legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act, the existence of a building at the time of the establishment of a mortgage is required. In such cases, if the building has the elements as a building, it is necessary to complete the registration.

(2) The court below's decision was accepted on April 12, 198, and 2002Da74343 delivered on March 28, 2003, etc.). 2. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance. (1) The defendant, as the plaintiff's debtor, provided the plaintiff with the land of this case as a collateral and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral for both parties. (1) At the time, there was a new building existing on the land of this case since the old building was already destroyed, and the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the establishment registration was completed. The plaintiff already destroyed the old building that was completed the registration of establishment of a collateral for the building of this case, and the new building of this case was not registered, and auction was conducted only on the land of this case after the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid.