In a case where Party A purchased the land of Party B and constructed a house, and the construction permit and registration are made in the name of Party B for the security of the land price, Party B’s request for evacuation against Party B who leased the building from Party A (negative)

If the building owner newly built a apartment house after purchasing another person's housing site and newly built the apartment house in the name of the owner of the housing site in order to guarantee the payment of the purchase price, and the registration of ownership preservation thereof was made in the name of the owner of the housing site, the completed apartment house shall be considered to have been transferred to the owner of the housing site within the scope of the purpose of security by completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the owner of the housing site after the building owner acquired it from the original owner of the housing site in order to secure the payment of the purchase price of the housing site in accordance with the agreement with the owner of the housing site.

Articles 187 and 372 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1884 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong1990, 1135) Supreme Court Decision 91Da13830 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2348) Supreme Court Decision 91Da21770 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong192, 75)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Lee Woo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na48901 delivered on January 11, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no reason to discuss the facts in the court below as it did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As legally determined by the court below, if the non-party 1 purchased the site of this case from the non-party 2 on behalf of the plaintiffs and constructed the 9 household of the apartment house including each of the building of this case with his effort and expenses in advance before the payment of the purchase price of the site was made, and according to the agreement between the parties, the construction permit on the above apartment house and its preservation registration was made in the name of the plaintiffs for securing the payment of the purchase price of the site of this case, the completed apartment house shall be deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiffs within the scope of the purpose of security by completing the preservation registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs after the above non-party 1 who constructed it was first acquired, and in such a case, the defendants who legally leased and moved into the building of this case from the above non-party 1, the original acquisitor, on the ground that the plaintiffs are its owner (refer to Supreme Court Decision 91Da13830 delivered on August 13, 191).

Although the reasoning of the lower judgment was inappropriate, the lower court’s conclusion that dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim seeking the clarification of each of the buildings of this case based on ownership is justifiable, and thus, cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)