According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged on January 20, 1983 that the plaintiff applied for a building permit for 12-household houses containing the building in this case and obtained the permit. The non-party 1 completed the construction process of 50 percent and suspended the construction from July 30, 1983 due to the shortage of funds. The non-party 2 and the non-party 11 transferred all the authority regarding the construction of the above building from the above non-party 1 on November 12, 1983 and completed the construction with their funds and completed the remaining construction around October 1985, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 11, including the above non-party 2, etc. transferred the 12-household tenement houses containing the building in this case to the plaintiff as the purchase price for the land to the plaintiff. According to the above acknowledged facts, the plaintiff acquired the right to manage the building in this case as the owner of the building in this case and there is no obligation to prove that the defendant did not use the building in this case.

However, as determined by the court below, if 11, including Nonparty 2, etc., obtained from Nonparty 1 to complete the original building after acquiring it from him to the extent that it does not have any form and structure that can be seen as a building under the social norms, then the 11 person including Nonparty 2, etc., including Nonparty 2, etc., acquired the ownership at the original time by constructing the original building at the original time. Therefore, the original building at the original time is owned by Nonparty 2, etc., and even if 11, including the above Nonparty 2, etc., agreed to substitute payment to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership unless the ownership transfer registration is completed in the name of the plaintiff.

Therefore, in order for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of the building of this case, it shall be examined whether the registration of ownership transfer of the building of this case has been made in the name of the plaintiff. The decision of the court below that the plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case only with the fact that the owner of the building of this case agreed to pay it in kind to the plaintiff, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of ownership of the building of this case, or in the incomplete hearing

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)