[토지인도등][공1991.8.1.(901),1912]
A person liable to remove unregistered buildings built on land owned by another person;
If a building constructed on another's land is unregistered and the ownership of the building is infringed, the obligation to remove the building is a person in a position to dispose of the building legally and in fact.
Article 214 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 350, Nov. 24, 1987) (Law No. 3798, Nov. 24, 1987) (Law No. 3073, Feb. 14, 1989) (Gong1989, 414)
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na23351 delivered on March 8, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on evidence, confirmed that the non-party 1's possession of the land of this case by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1's possession of the land of this case after being awarded a contract for construction work from the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and completed the construction work of this case, and the defendant lent the construction cost to the above company and borrowed it by payment in lieu of the above loan claims, and that the land of this case was acquired by the bid of the plaintiffs. In light of the records, the court below
In a case where a building constructed on another's land is unregistered and the ownership of the building is infringed, the obligation to remove the building is to be a person who is in a position to dispose of the building legally and practically (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu257, 258, Nov. 24, 1987). As determined by the court below, as long as the defendant acquired it from the company as the original acquisitor of the building of this case and acquired the de facto right to dispose of it, the building of this case shall be liable to remove the building of this case. The judgment below is just and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)