(b) Where a title of building permission of a building newly constructed by the debtor at his/her own expense and effort to secure debts is granted to the creditor's name;

B. If the obligor under the name of the obligee the title of the building permit to be newly constructed by his own expense and effort to secure the obligation, it is an agreement to provide the building to be completed as security, and the ownership of the completed building should be deemed to have been transferred to the obligee within the extent of the purpose of security by completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the obligee after the obligor acquired it at the original time and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the obligee.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding Nos. 1 and 3 (misunderstanding of facts due to misunderstanding of disposal documents or misunderstanding of legal principles as to original acquisition of building ownership, and mistake of facts due to misconception of facts against the rules of evidence)

In general, a person who constructed a building in his own effort and materials acquires the ownership of the building at the original time. However, in the contract, if it seems that the contractor and the contractor agree to vest the ownership of the completed building in the order of the contractor by obtaining a construction permit in the name of the contractor even if the contractor completed the building with his own effort and materials, the ownership of the building shall be reverted to the contractor in the original condition. However, if the debtor's name of the construction permit for the building newly constructed by his own expense and effort for the security of the obligation under the name of the obligee, it is an agreement to provide the building to be completed as security, which is not the establishment of the security right by legal act, and the ownership of the completed building shall be deemed to have been transferred to the obligee within the scope of the object of security by completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the obligee (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1884 delivered on April 24, 190).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on February 10, 1987, the non-party 1 purchased the commercial site in this case and its adjacent ○ apartment site from the plaintiff on May 24, 1987, but purchased only the apartment site after the agreement was cancelled on the above sales contract, and re-purchase the commercial site in this case at the price as stated in its holding, but even before the fixed purchase of the above commercial site, if construction was conducted on the above ground, the non-party 1 had agreed to undertake construction with the construction permission under the name of the plaintiff as the owner of the site. On June 3, 1988, the court below determined that the non-party 1 purchased the building building in this case under the name of the plaintiff and completed construction and completed it around the end of February, 1988, but it cannot be deemed that the non-party 1 acquired the building permission under the name of the plaintiff as the owner of the building, and even if the non-party 1 acquired the ownership of the building in this case, it cannot be deemed that it was owned by the non-party 1.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

2. As to the omission of judgment and the exercise of the right to explanation

Even if the plaintiff asserted that the commercial building of this case was owned by himself and it was transferred by the above non-party company as a substitute payment for other obligations, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's assertion that it was based on the right of possession and the plaintiff's assertion that it was transferred by the above non-party company as a substitute payment for other obligations. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that it did not include the plaintiff's explanation of the commercial building or the plaintiff's explanation in subrogation for the above non-party company which is the owner. Therefore, even if the court below did not clarify the plaintiff's claim and did not make judgment among the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be said that there was

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)