[소유권확인][공2006.12.1.(263),1995]
[1] Whether the transferee of an unregistered building without permission can be recognized as a de facto right or legal status of ownership (negative)
[2] The case holding that in a case where the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that they are the persons entitled to receive compensation for the removal of unregistered buildings, the plaintiff does not consider what kind of methods to pay the compensation for the removal, and there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the right to use the above unauthorized building
[1] Even a transferee of unregistered building without permission can not acquire ownership of the building unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed, it cannot be said that there is a customary real right equivalent to ownership, and it is difficult to recognize a comprehensive right or legal status under the current law, which is a de facto ownership.
[2] In a case where the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that they are the persons entitled to receive compensation for removal of unregistered buildings without permission, the case holding that there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of the right to use the said unauthorized building without considering what method the compensation for removal should be paid to any person in any position
[1] Articles 185 and 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da53006 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2144), Supreme Court Decision 98Da5918 delivered on March 23, 199 (Gong199Sang, 739Sang, 739)
Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee Li-EL, Attorneys Boo-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Law Firm Ulil, Attorneys Park Jong-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Na27491 Decided July 6, 2006
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that since the plaintiff acquired ownership by purchasing the building without permission of this case on February 21, 1984 and occupied it in peace and public performance for 20 years or more from that time, the plaintiff sought confirmation of ownership ownership since the reasons alleged by the plaintiff alone cannot be acquired, as long as the building of this case was not unregistered without permission, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership was not reasonable, but the plaintiff's claim is presumed to include the purport of seeking confirmation that the plaintiff is the actual ownership of the building of this case, which is the use, profit, and disposal of the building of this case, and since the plaintiff purchased the building of this case from the non-party 1, the first owner of the building of this case through the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, the plaintiff and the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff actually owned ownership of the building of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant.
2. However, even if a transferee of an unregistered building without permission fails to obtain the registration of ownership transfer, he cannot acquire the ownership of the building unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed, and there is no customary real right equivalent to the ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da53006, Jun. 14, 1996, etc.). It is difficult to recognize any comprehensive right or legal status that is de facto ownership under the current law.
On the other hand, in this case, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of ownership on the premise that the Plaintiff occupied the building of this case unregistered without permission after purchasing it, so the lower court is obligated to clarify what the Plaintiff’s genuine intent is, and then determine the existence of the right. However, without taking such measures, to grasp the contents different from the Plaintiff’s claim expressed and make a decision thereon in principle, it is not allowed. Furthermore, according to the records of this case, according to the records, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are asserting that the Plaintiff are the receiving authority of the relevant removal compensation, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are asserting that they are the receiving authority of the said removal compensation. Accordingly, it is difficult to conclude that the said removal compensation should be paid by any means to anyone in any position to whom the said removal compensation should be paid, without considering what kind of means, and it is effective and appropriate to resolve disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which accepted the claim on the premise that the plaintiff's claim of this case was the purport of seeking the confirmation of actual ownership of the building of this case, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interest of confirmation or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)