[소유권보존등기등말소][공2002.6.15.(156),1234]
[1] The legal effect of a construction permit certificate and the acquisition of ownership of a building where the building permit becomes another person's name
[2] Legal relations where a construction business operator, who purchased another's site and constructed a building in his/her own effort and material without paying the purchase price, as the owner of the building site
[3] The elements of the original acquisitor of ownership (=the original owner) and the building as an independent real estate in a case where the building is completed after being delivered with an incomplete building that can be viewed as an independent building by social norms
[1] Building permission is an administrative disposition that restores the freedom to a certain building act by cancelling and cancelling a relative prohibition that an administrative agency is prohibited from performing a building act without the permission of an administrative agency in order to achieve the purpose of building administration, and it is an administrative disposition that restores the freedom to a certain building act, not a new right or ability to a person who grants permission. Since building permission is not a method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of substantive rights to the permitted building, not a method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of real rights, and there is no presumption of ability, the building permission does not acquire the ownership of the building by the owner stated in the building permission report as the owner's own cost and effort. Thus
[2] In a case where a construction business operator purchases another's site and constructs a building in his effort and material without paying the price, and then becomes a site owner, in light of the fact that the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the construction business operator is inevitable in the future, unless there are special circumstances pursuant to Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the purpose of the registration of ownership preservation shall be general in the case where the purpose of the building is to secure the obligation to pay the site price. In this case, the ownership of the completed building shall be deemed to have been transferred to the above creditor within the extent of the purpose of security by completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the
[3] In a case where the building owner completed the remaining construction after delivery of a completed building, which had been interrupted due to the circumstances of the building owner, if the building had a form and structure that can be seen as an independent building under social norms at the time of the discontinuance of the construction, the original owner shall be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the building; if the building had a minimum pole, roof, and main wall, it shall be deemed that the original owner satisfies the requirements of the building as an independent real estate.
[1] Articles 186 and 187 of the Civil Act, Article 8 of the Building Act / [2] Articles 187 and 664 of the Civil Act, Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 1 of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act / [3] Articles 99(1) and 664 of the Civil Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6754 decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1985, 110), Supreme Court Decision 96Da10638 decided March 28, 1997 (Gong1997, 1997, 1204, 1979, 197) 89Da1884 decided April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1135, 1997, 1969, 297Da19697, 297, 309, 297Da19796 decided April 11, 197)
Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Kim-ok et al. (Attorney Cho Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 99Na14763 delivered on February 10, 2000
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
1. 원심은, 원고들은 안산시 고잔동 540의 15 대 1355.6㎡(이하 '이 사건 대지'라고 한다)의 공유자들 중 일부인 사실, 피고 김옥곤은 1986. 8. 1. 당시 원고들을 포함한 이 사건 대지의 공유자 30인을 대표한 원고 1과 사이에, 이 사건 대지상에 위 피고가 지하 1층, 지상 5층 규모의 상가건물(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라고 한다)을 위 피고의 비용으로 건축한 다음 그 중 지상 1층(단 주차장 부분 제외, 지상 1층의 주차장은 이 사건 대지의 공유자들이 사용권만을 갖기로 하였다)은 위 공유자들의 소유로 하되, 그에 대한 대가로 위 공유자들은 이 사건 대지에 관한 각자 지분의 5/6를 위 피고에게 이전하기로 약정(이하 '이 사건 교환계약'이라고 한다)한 사실, 피고 김옥곤은 그 무렵 원고들을 비롯한 대지소유권자(이하 '원고 등'이라고 한다)의 대지사용승낙서 등 서류를 갖추어 피고 김옥곤을 건축주로 하는 건축허가신청서를 작성하여 건축사설계사무소에 건축허가절차를 위임하였으나 원고 1이 이 사건 건물에 대하여 피고 김옥곤 단독의 건축주명의로 된 건축허가가 나오면 원고 등의 권익이 침해될 수 있다는 이유로 건축허가신청서의 신청인란에 임의로 그 대지소유자들인 ' 원고 1 외 29명'이라고 추가 기재하고 그 옆에 자신의 인장을 찍어 건축허가신청을 하게 하였고, 이러한 건축허가신청을 받은 안산시장은 이를 적법한 것으로 보고 1986. 10. 6. 피고 김옥곤과 원고 등을 공동건축주로 하는 이 사건 건물에 관한 건축허가를 한 사실, 그 후 피고 김옥곤은 원고 등과의 공동건축주 명의를 용인하여 착공신고서, 설계변경허가신청서 및 허가서, 중간검사신청서 및 검사필증 등의 명의를 피고 김옥곤과 원고 등의 공동명의로 하였던 사실, 그러나 피고 김옥곤이 이 사건 교환계약 당시 약정한 바와 다르게 이 사건 건물의 건축공사를 제대로 진행하지 아니하고 또 건축비 전부를 부담하지 아니하여 원고 등이 일부 공사비를 부담하여 나머지 공사를 진행하게 됨으로써 원고 등과 피고 김옥곤 사이에 분쟁이 야기되었고, 그 과정에서 원고 1이 위와 같이 건축허가신청서를 변조한 범죄사실로 서울형사지방법원에서 유죄판결을 선고받자 피고 김옥곤은 1991. 7. 19. 아직 확정되지 아니한 원고 1에 대한 유죄판결을 첨부하여 건축주명의변경신고서를 제출하였고, 위 신고서를 접수한 안산시청 건축과 공무원인 소외 1 등은 확정판결이 아니더라도 명의변경을 할 수 있다는 내용의 경기도청 법무담당관 명의로 된 전언통신문(팩시밀리)을 위조한 다음 내부결재를 거쳐 다음날인 같은 달 20. 원래의 건축허가신청서 중 원고 등의 명의가 변조된 것으로 인정하고 이를 수리하는 형식으로 건축주명의를 피고 김옥곤 단독명의로 변경하는 내용의 건축주명의변경처분을 하였고, 원고 1 등에게는 사전통보를 하지 아니한 채 그 명의변경처분 이후인 같은 해 8. 1.에서야 위 건축주명의변경처분의 통보를 한 사실, 피고 김옥곤은 위와 같이 위 피고 단독명의의 건축허가변경을 받은 다음 1991. 8. 20. 안산시장으로부터 준공검사를 받은 후 같은 해 9. 6. 이 사건 건물에 관하여 피고 김옥곤 명의의 소유권보존등기를 경료한 사실(가처분권자 김재석의 대위에 의한 소유권보존등기), 그런데 이 사건 건물은 지하 1층, 지상 5층의 철근콘크리트 외벽에 슬래브 지붕이 덮혀 있는 구조로서 건물의 각 층은 구분되어 구조상 및 이용상의 독립성을 갖추고 있으나, 그 건물 1층은 일반상가건물로서 그 내부에 아무런 칸막이를 하지 아니하고 1층 전체를 하나의 공간으로 하여 준공을 마쳤는데 1층 내부의 점포를 임차받은 사람들이 나중에 점포가 대부분 분양되면 철거한다는 것을 조건으로 알루미늄 섀시 기둥과 유리로 칸막이 시설을 한 점포가 건물 전면 부분에 4개, 후면에 1개가 있었을 뿐(위와 같은 시설을 한 점포 5개 중 3개는 뒤에 보는 바와 같이 제101호부터 146호까지 구별하여 구분소유권보존등기를 경료한 각 점포 2개씩을 합하여 하나의 점포로 시설한 것이어서 그 상호간에는 경계나 특정을 위한 시설이 전혀 없다), 그 밖에 각 점포의 경계나 특정을 위한 칸막이나 차단시설 등이 전혀 설치되어 있지 아니하였는데도, 피고 김옥곤은 이 사건 건물 1층 801.6㎡ 중 주차장 19.8㎡를 제외한 781.8㎡를 평면도면상으로만 46개의 판매시설(점포)과 통로로 구획하고 위 구획된 점포에 제101호부터 제146호까지의 번호를 붙여 서로 구별한 다음 1992. 1. 23. 이 사건 건물 1층의 통로 부분을 제외한 각 점포(그 일부가 이 사건 소의 목적이 되는 각 부동산이다)에 관하여 피고 김옥곤 명의의 각 구분소유권보존등기(이하 '이 사건 구분소유권보존등기'라고 한다)까지 경료한 사실, 그런데 원고 1은 안산시장을 상대로 피고 김옥곤 단독으로 건축허가명의를 변경한 위 1991. 7. 20.자 건축주명의변경처분의 취소를 구하는 소송을 제기하여 위 1991. 7. 20.자 건축주명의변경처분을 취소하는 확정판결을 받은 사실, 한편 이 사건 구분소유권보존등기에 터잡아 이 사건 각 부동산에 관하여 나머지 피고들 명의의 각 해당 소유권이전등기 및 원심 공동피고들 명의의 각 소유권이전등기 및 근저당권설정등기 등이 각 경료된 사실을 인정하였다.
Furthermore, according to the above facts, the court below determined that, even if the above defendant was expected to acquire the ownership of the building in this case under the original exchange contract of this case, since the above defendant accepted the building permit under the joint name with the plaintiff et al., and the plaintiff et al. also cooperates in the completion of construction of the building construction of this case with their efforts and expenses, ownership of the first floor of this case at least belongs to the plaintiff et al. who is joint owner, and at least the ownership of the first floor of this case shall be registered as joint owner, and since the registration of ownership preservation of the first floor of this case was completed with the division of the 46 stores of this case from among the 46 stores of the 1st floor of this case where the registration of ownership preservation of the defendant Kim-ok was completed, the above four stores in the front and the second side of the above 1st floor except for the above four stores in front and the second side of the above Gain voting, the ownership registration of each of the above Gain's joint ownership registration of each of the above 5 buildings and its structural purposes are invalidly invalid.
2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the plaintiffs are co-owners of the first floor of the building of this case and have the right to claim the cancellation of each of the above registrations.
A building permit is an administrative disposition that restores the freedom of construction even if a certain building act is performed, by cancelling and cancelling a relative prohibition that an administrative agency should not generally be permitted to construct without the permission of an administrative agency in order to achieve the objectives of the building administration. No new right or ability is granted to an authorized person, and a building permit does not constitute a method of public announcement of gain and loss of substantive rights to the permitted building, and there is no presumption of capacity, and thus a person stated in the building permit form as the owner does not acquire ownership of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da10638, Mar. 28, 1997). A person who newly constructed a building with his own cost and effort is entitled to original acquisition of ownership regardless of whether the building permit was obtained in the name of another person (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2452, Jul. 9, 1985). 197; if a construction business entity purchased another person’s building site and constructed materials in the name of another person and without paying the price to the obligee, the ownership registration of the building should be deemed to have been completed under 197.197.
Therefore, in the case of this case where it is evident that defendant Kim Yong-ok became a contractor and concluded the building contract of this case with the highest contractor and carried out all the construction works accordingly (refer to the evidence No. 17 of this case, etc.), even though defendant Kim Jong-ok subsequently accepted the building permit of this case from the joint name of himself and the plaintiff et al., it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff et al. allow the plaintiff et al. to acquire the ownership of the first floor of the building of this case, and it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff et al. permits the plaintiff et al. to acquire the ownership of the first floor of this case, and it is also recognized by the judgment of the court below that the construction permit of this case was allowed after the fact that the plaintiff et al. acquired the ownership of the first floor of the building of this case in order to recognize that the plaintiff et al. acquired the ownership of the first floor of this case in the name of the sole owner of defendant Kim Kim-ok-ok.
However, the records show that Plaintiff 1’s cost and effort for the construction of the instant building on behalf of the Plaintiff et al. after June 198. However, in the event that the building was delivered to a building owner and completed the remaining construction due to the circumstances of the building owner, if the building had a type and structure that can be viewed as an independent building under social norms at the time of discontinuance of the construction, the original owner of the building acquired the ownership of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da1527, 1534, Apr. 23, 1993; 96Da54867, May 9, 197). However, even if the building was built on behalf of the Plaintiff et al., the building should not be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of the building, such as the building owner’s cost and effort to acquire the building on his own, even if it had been made on his own after the minimum pole, roof, and main wall, it can not be seen that the building had been built on his own basis.
Therefore, the court below should have examined whether the plaintiff et al. had the form and structure that can be seen as an independent building under social norms at the time of June 1988 when the costs and efforts for the construction of the building of this case were commenced, and confirmed whether the plaintiff et al. can be seen as having acquired the ownership of part of the part of the first floor of this case (the plaintiff et al., asserted in the court below that the plaintiff et al. did not acquire the ownership of the building of this case among the arguments made by the court below, had the form and structure that can be seen as an independent building under social norms at the time of June 1988 when the plaintiff et al. started to pay costs and efforts for the construction of the building of this case, and therefore, it did not contain any assertion that the plaintiff et al. did not acquire the ownership of the part of the first floor of this case at the time of the commencement of the construction of the building of this case, and on the premise that the plaintiff et al. acquired the ownership of the part of the building of this case.
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 further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)