Whether an agreement has been reached to trust the name of the building permit with respect to the trust of the real estate-owner may be deemed to have been reached.

In the registration of preservation of ownership of a newly constructed building, if a building ledger is prepared by designating a building owner who has obtained a construction permit as the owner after the certificate of completion of use inspection was issued, the person registered as the owner in the ledger files an application for registration along with a certified copy of the ledger. In light of the fact that the registration of real estate and the Building Act are the principle procedures provided for in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Registration of Real Estate Act and the Building Act, if the actual owner has completed the building with a construction permit granted in the name of the other person and received the certificate of completion of use inspection under the agreement with the other person

[title trust] Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 91Na4469 delivered on March 19, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held on April 28, 1983 that the plaintiff, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff, etc.") were newly constructed with a building permit under the joint name with the non-party 4, the seller of the building site, and on June 11, 1983, that the above non-party 4 and the above deceased non-party 5 were changed the building permit for the construction for the convenience of construction, and the construction was approved by the competent authority, but the construction was completed with the funds of the plaintiff, etc. (the completion inspection was completed in the name of the above non-party 4 and the non-party 5 on July 30, 1984, the above non-party 5's above building owner's name and the non-party 5's ownership of the above non-party 1's above apartment house cannot be found to be invalid due to the change in the name of the above plaintiff 5's owner's ownership.

2. The term "title trust on the ownership of real estate" means that a truster shall make profits from the possession and use of real estate as a trustee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2653, May 12, 1987). Thus, in a case where the actual owner of a building who is substantially constructing a building has completed the construction by obtaining a construction permit under the name of another person in accordance with an agreement with the other person, whether the title trust relation on the ownership of the newly constructed building can be deemed to have been established solely for such circumstance, regardless of whether the registration of title trust relation on the ownership of the building can be established, the registration of ownership preservation on the newly constructed building is made by a person registered as the owner on the building register by applying for a registration with a certified copy of the register, if the registration of title trust relation has been completed under the name of another person, unless special circumstances exist, in view of the fact that the registration of title trust was completed under the name of the other person.

In this case, as recognized by the court below, if the plaintiff et al., who is the actual owner of the building permit obtained approval from the competent authority on the change of the owner's name (title of building permit) in accordance with the agreement with the above deceased non-party 5, completed the apartment house in this case, and as a result, the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in the name of the above deceased as the above deceased was registered as the owner on the building ledger (as recognized by the court below, the name of the owner was changed to the above deceased and the above non-party 4, and the building ledger does not appear in the record on the records that can be seen by the above deceased's identification of the reasons why the above deceased's owner was registered as the owner, and unless there are any special circumstances, it is pointed out that there is a need to examine the change in the name of the owner of the apartment house in this case, and it is reasonable to deem that the above plaintiff et al. and the above deceased agreed to make the registration of preservation of ownership at the time of the agreement on the change

Nevertheless, the court below held that the name of the owner of the apartment house in this case was changed based on the above agreement between the plaintiff et al. and the above deceased non-party 5, and accordingly, the name of the owner of the building management ledger in this case was recorded as the above non-party 5, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff et al. entrusted the name of the owner of the apartment house in this case to the above deceased non-party 5. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the intention of the party who made the above agreement or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Supreme Court Decision 81Meu367 Decided December 8, 1981 cited by the court below is related to a matter for which the actual owner unilaterally obtained a building permit under another person’s name, and it is not appropriate to invoke the instant case, for which the parties agreed to change the name of the owner.

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)