In cases where legal superficies cannot be acquired under customary law;

If Party A, who has been awarded a contract from a landowner for a new construction of a ground building, sells only the completed building to Party B without completing the construction of the building on the site and Party B completes the construction, Party B cannot acquire a statutory superficies under customary law on the site.

Article 279 of the Civil Act, Article 366 of the Civil Act

July 8, 1980, 79Da2000 decided Jul. 8, 1980 (Supreme Court Decision 12460, Supreme Court Decision 28 ②B citizen105, summary of summary of the decision, Article 366(1)33 of the Civil Code, Court Gazette 6395 pages 1295)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Netcheon Branch (79Gahap137)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant removes 2 saves saves saves saves saves saves saves saves saves saves 76 square meters 189.8 square meters of the above site and delivers them to the plaintiff, and pays 200,000 won per month each month until the delivery is completed.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above cancellation is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances.

1. On Nov. 5, 1976, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on May 2, 1979 with respect to 189.8 square meters (number omitted) in Seosan-dong (hereinafter “the instant site”) from the Defendant, and on May 2, 1979, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Defendant currently owns only one house (unregistered building; hereinafter the instant building) with the store and one house (unregistered building; hereinafter the instant building) in the purport of the claim on the instant site, and that the Defendant occupies the instant site, there is no dispute between the parties (the Defendant, in the original judgment, led to the cancellation of the said confession, even though he was led to the confession that the instant building was owned by the Defendant, and there is no evidence that the confession was against the truth and that the confession was caused by mistake, the validity of

Therefore, the defendant, as an illegal possessor of the building site, has a duty to remove the building site and deliver the building site to the plaintiff, unless it proves that the defendant has legitimate title to occupy the building site. The defendant is asked that the plaintiff purchase the building site for the purpose of constructing the building from the defendant, and provide the defendant with the building site as a security by means of financing on the building site before paying the purchase price, together with the non-party 1 before paying the purchase price. Thus, the defendant, for the purpose of promoting the plaintiff's convenience, set up a mortgage on November 16, 1976 with the non-party 2, etc. designated by the plaintiff to set up a 4,800,000 won for the purpose of promoting the plaintiff's convenience, and then, on the 17th day of the same month, set up a mortgage on the non-party 1, 16045, which had been received by the registration office of the Gwangju District Court, and again set up a mortgage on January 13, 1977 to the non-party 1,3600 won.

Therefore, I first examine the plaintiff's acquisition route of the building site and the defendant's main building ownership route.

각 그 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(토지등기부등본), 갑 제3호증의 1, 2(각 판결), 갑 제2호증의 3, 5(각 증인신문조서, 갑 제2호증의 3은 을 제3호증의 6과 같다) 갑 제4호증의 1, 2(표지, 공소장), 을 제1호증(건축허가서), 을 제2호증(납세증명원), 을 제3호증의 3(건물신축계약서)의 각 기재 및 을 제3호증의 8(검증조서)의 일부 기재(믿지 아니하는 부분 제외)에 원심증인 소외 4, 당심증인 소외 5의 각 증언 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 소개인이며 건축업자인 소외 1로부터 빈공터로 있는 본건 대지를 매수하여 집을 지으면 이익이 남을 뿐만 아니라 “돈 한푼없이 건축할 수 있다, 점포를 지어 전세내어 놓으면 건축비도 나올 수 있으니 공사비 걱정은 하지말라, 지금 건축자재가 오르고 있으니 빨리 건축하는 것이 이익이다”라는 권고를 받고 1976. 11. 5. 피고로부터 그 소유인 본건 대지에 관하여 대금 8,610,000원, 계약금은 금 2,000,000원, 중도금 3,000,000원은 같은해 11. 25., 잔금은 같은해 12. 25. 소유권이전등기 관계 소요서류와 상환으로 각 지급키로 하는 내용의 매매계약을 체결하고, 당일 위 계약금 2,000,000원을 원고가 피고에게 지급한 사실, 그리하여 원고는 위 소외인의 권고에 따라 같은해 11. 18. 도급인 원고, 수급인 소외 1과 사이에 본건 대지상에 총 공사금액을 금 13,680,000원 당일 계약금으로 금 4,500,000원, 일차 중간지불금으로 금 5,000,000원은 단층 스라브완공과 동시에, 이차 중간지불금으로 금 3,500,000원은 2층 스라브완공과 동시에, 그리고 잔금은 건물완공후 10일 이내에 각 원고가 위 소외인에게 지급키로 하는 내용의 건물신축계약을 체결한 사실, 그런데 소외 1은 원고 모르게 본건 대지의 소유자인 피고의 양해하에 동 피고의 인감증명을 교부받아 위 건물신축계약 이전인 1976. 11. 17. 본건 대지에 관하여 피고 주장과 같은 제 1 번 근저당권설정등기를 경료하여 차용한 금 3,000,000원으로 건물 신축공사에 착수하고, (피고 명의로 건축허가를 받았다)다시 1977. 1. 17. 본건 대지에 관하여 피고 주장과 같은 제 2 번 근저당권설정등기를 경료하여 차용한 금 3,000,000원으로 위 건물신축 공사비에 계속 충당하여온 사실, 한편 원고는 소외 1이 고용한 위 공사인부인 소외 6으로부터 1977. 12. 말경 위 제 1 번 근저당권설정등기 사실을 전해듣고 동 등기의 말소등기를 하지 않는 이상, 본건 대지의 잔금을 피고에게 지급할 수 없다고 거절함으로써(중도금은 1976. 12. 26. 지급하였고, 잔대금은 같은해 12. 말까지 지급키로 원·피고간에 합의 연기되었었다) 본건 대지의 잔대금지급과 위 근저당권설정등기의 말소문제로 원·피고간에 분쟁이 계속되었던 사실, 소외 1은 본건 건물 신축공사중 원고가 위 도급계약에 따른 공사비 미지급을 이유로(공사비를 전혀 지급하지 않았다) 1977. 3. 23. 위 건축도급계약해제 통고를 하고 이어 같은달 24일 위 신축건물에 관한 소유권이 원고와 관계없음을 통고하는 한편, 더이상의 공사비 염출이 어렵게 되자 그 무렵 본건 건물을 피고에게 양도하고, 피고가 비용을 더들여 본건 건물을 완공하고 세로 내놓아, 현재는 모두 6세대의 전세 입주자들이 거주하고 있는 사실 및 원고가 피고를 상대로 결국 광주지방법원 순천지원에 본건 대지에 관한 소유권이전등기 청구의 소를 제기하여 동 법원에서 피고는 원고로부터 금 2,860,000원을 지급받음과 동시에 본건 대지에 관하여 1976. 11. 5. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기 절차를 이행하라는 판결( 동 법원 77가합224 판결 )이 선고되고, 피고가 불복항소하였으나 항소기각판결( 광주고등법원 77나516 판결 )이 선고되고, 피고가 상고를 하지 아니함으로써 위 판결이 확정되어, 이에 따라 1979. 5. 2. 본건 대지에 관하여 원고 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정에 일부 반하는 을 제3호증의 4(증인신문조서), 을 제3호증의 7(진술조서), 을 제3호증의 8(검증조서, 다만 위에서 믿는 부분 제외)의 각 기재는 앞서 인정한 사실에 비추어 당원이 믿지 아니하고 달리 반증이 없다.

In this case, the owner of a building shall acquire the legal superficies under customary law only when the land and the building above belongs to the same owner, but the owner of the building becomes different due to sale or any other reason. Thus, as in the case of this case, if the plaintiff had no building owned by the defendant on that ground at the time when the plaintiff purchased the building site from the defendant and there is an empty land, the plaintiff purchased the building site for the purpose of constructing the building. In addition, even if the plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the building because the construction cost agreed upon with the non-party 1 who is the contractor was not paid to the non-party 1, the defendant cannot obtain the legal superficies under customary law against the plaintiff who is the owner of the building site, and in this case, the defendant must acquire the right to use the building site again from the plaintiff, and unless otherwise, the possession of the building site is ultimately an illegal possession.

The defendant argues to the effect that the removal of the building is abuse of rights since the market price of the building at issue is 20 million won or more. However, even if the above building's market price is 20 million won or more, there is no evidence that the above building's market price is 20 million won or more, and even if the domestic market price is considerable, in order to become an abuse of rights, the purpose of the exercise of rights is to inflict pain or damage on the other party, and there is no benefit on the other party. In addition, the exercise of rights should be viewed as a violation of social order. Since there is no evidence on the requirements of abuse of rights, the above defense should not be accepted.

2. Next, as to the plaintiff's claim for damages from the rent of the party, the fact that the defendant owned the building of this case from May 3, 1979 on the following day after the plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case and illegally occupied it is recognized as above. Thus, according to the testimony of the non-party 7 by the witness of the court below, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the compensation for damages from the rent of the building of this case. Accordingly, according to the testimony of the non-party 7 of the court below, the rent of the building of this case after May 1979 is deemed to be reasonable monthly, and the testimony of the non-party 8 of the court below contrary to the above recognition is deemed to be reasonable and there is no counter-proof, and it can be recognized in light of the empirical rule that the rent of this case will continue to be maintained at least in the future. Thus, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed from May 3, 1979 to the date of removal of the building of this case, and there is no reason to dismiss the remainder of the plaintiff's appeal.

Judges Lee Dong-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung