Whether a registered titleholder of a site may demand an explanation from an illegal possessor of a building that is not an illegal building constructed on the site.

With respect to an illegal possessor of a building which is not an illegal building, the owner of the house may make a request for surrender, and the registrant of the building site may not make a request for surrender on the ground that the building site is owned by himself.

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na35 delivered on September 18, 1975

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

The court below held that the plaintiff had no legal title to claim ownership of the unregistered building at issue in this case, and that there was no evidence to find that the building at issue in this case was owned by the defendant 1 or has the right to dispose of the land at issue in this case in the future of the plaintiff, and that there was no evidence to find that the building at issue in this case was owned by the defendant 1 or has the right to dispose of the land at issue in this case, and that the plaintiff's principal claim and the conjunctive claim were dismissed by the record, and there was no misapprehension of the legal principles as to legal reconciliation and that the plaintiff did not conduct an examination as to the right to occupy and use (section 63 of the record) as long as the plaintiff clearly stated that the right to request ownership at the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second instance's second appeal's second appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. 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 Han-jin (Presiding Justice)