(a) Ownership of a building in case of construction of a building in his own effort and materials;

(b) Ownership of a building where the name of the building permit of the building newly constructed by the debtor at his/her own expense and effort to secure debts is made in the name of the creditor;

A. Generally, a person who constructed a building in his/her own effort and materials shall acquire the ownership of the building in original terms: Provided, That in the case of a contract for work, if it is deemed that the contractor and the contractor agree to vest the ownership of the completed building in the order of the contractor, such as obtaining a construction permit under the name of the contractor and obtaining a registration of preservation of ownership even if the contractor completed the building in their own effort and materials, the ownership of the building shall be reverted to the contractor

B. If the name of the building permit of a building newly constructed by the debtor in his own cost and effort to secure the obligation is under the name of the creditor, it is an agreement to provide the building to be completed as a security, and it is not different from the establishment of the security right by legal act. Thus, the ownership of the completed building should be deemed to have been transferred to the above creditor within the scope of the purpose of security by completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the creditor after the debtor who constructed it

A. Articles 64 and 187 of the Civil Act; Articles 372, 664, and 187 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1014 decided Jul. 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 1309) (Gong1985, 66) 80Da177 decided Nov. 27, 1984 (Gong1985, 66) (Gong1990, 633). Supreme Court Decision 84Da2452 decided Jul. 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 1110) (Gong10) 86Da660 decided Jun. 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1205)

Hong Government (Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-ho

Suwon District Court Decision 88Na7603 delivered on June 13, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

1. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above non-party 98 square meters 13-16,000 building owned by the non-party 2 for the purpose of new construction of the above 1984. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to pay the above 10,000,000 won for the remainder of 10.0,000,000 won for the above 47,000 building and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were to purchase the above 9-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to acquire the same debt for the non-party 1 and the non-party 32,000,000 won for the remaining new construction of the above 19-party 1 and the non-party 1 were to receive the above construction permit.

(2) However, a person who constructed a building in his own effort and material generally acquires the ownership of the building in original condition. However, even if the contractor completes the building in his own effort and material with his own effort and material, if it appears that the contractor and the contractor agree to vest in the subcontractor the ownership of the round completed building to obtain a construction permit under the name of the contractor and the contractor, the ownership of the building shall be vested in the contractor in original condition.

According to the facts established by the court below in this case, it is difficult to view the relationship between the two persons as a contract relationship because, in order to purchase the land owned by the non-party leaple and to guarantee the payment of the remaining purchase and sale price, the non-party 1 purchased the land on the land in order to secure the payment of the remaining purchase and sale price, the non-party 1's title of building construction permit to be newly constructed on the land above the above land was the above leaplelelelele. Thus, if the debtor in order to secure the debt as the creditor's title of the building permit to be constructed on his own expense and effort was the agreement to offer the building to be completed as security, and it is not the establishment of the security right by legal act. Thus, the ownership of the completed building should be deemed to have been transferred to the above creditor within the scope of the purpose of security by acquiring the ownership of the building to be completed by the above creditor.

Ultimately, while recognizing the contractual relationship between the above lelelelele and the sick as a collateral for the land sale price, it is not a contractual relationship between the above lelelelelelele and the sick, the judgment of the ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership is erroneous.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the above lelele party's right to dispose of or lease the above building to the above lelelele party prior to the construction of the above building, even if the non-party lelelele's original acquisition was not an original acquisition but the non-party lelele's original acquisition of the above building, and therefore, the above lelelele has leased the above building to the defendants based on the right to dispose of the building granted by the above lelelelele party. Thus, the above lelele party's assertion that the defendants can oppose the above lelelelelele party and its transferee as the opposing power of the housing lease leased by the above lelelelelelelele party through the above lelelelelele's disease, it is difficult to allow the above lelelele party to construct the above building on the above land at the time of the above land sales contract and to transfer the ownership transfer registration to the person designated by the above lelelele's own right to the above lelelele party's claim that the above lelelelele party's ownership was held.

However, when considering the testimony of the court below as the witness employed by the court below, the father of the above leaple who is the husband of the above leaple, the newly-built house of this case stated that the above leaple, a construction business operator, completed the construction of the above leaple, managed and sold the land, and paid the land price to the above leaplelelelele, and thus, despite the fact that the above leaple angle was made to pay the land price with the amount obtained by managing the newly-built house and selling it in lots, the court below held that the above leaple angle was to acquire the right to manage and dispose of the above building after the payment of the land price was made in parallel with the above testimony and the upper half of the above leaplelele, and rejected

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)