In cases where the structure and form of a building have reached the extent that they may become the objects of sectional ownership, and where the remaining buildings are acquired from the owner of a building, which cannot be seen as the objects of land, and are carried out the construction, and such structure and form are built to the extent that they are recognized as identical to those of the building permit under the social norms, the original acquisitor (=transferee)

Even if a building is planned to be constructed from the beginning on the design map, and its construction is suspended due to the owner's circumstances while the building was in progress with a construction permit, and the structure had already been completed until it was interrupted, and the structure cannot be seen as an object of land, if the third party continues to perform the remaining construction work, as a result of the third party's acquisition of the structure and form of the building from the previous owner of the building to the extent that it is recognized as identical to that of the construction permit in terms of social norms, it is reasonable to view that the third party acquires the entire building as an object of ownership, and that the third party acquires the ownership of the whole building, considering the whole structure and form of the building which are deemed identical to that of the original design and construction permit, from among the whole building constructed in accordance with the structure and form for which the building permit was granted, only the columns, roof, and second walls were separated from the whole building at the time of the discontinuance, and it is not deemed that the previous owner acquires the ownership of the building at the time the building was completed as a sectional ownership at the time of the completion of the building.

Articles 187 and 215 of the Civil Act, Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Articles 3 and 10 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

Supreme Court Decision 99Da1345 delivered on September 17, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2185) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da16350 Delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1234) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da68783 Delivered on May 12, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 1035)

Samwon Housing Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Song, Attorney Cho Yong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

A movable housing corporation and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na77389 delivered on November 5, 2004

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

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

1. Where a building is planned to be constructed from the beginning on the design map to the same contents as the building was suspended due to the owner's circumstances while the building was being constructed with the same content as that, and the structure had already been completed until it was interrupted, and thus, it cannot be seen as an object of land. However, if a third party continues to undertake the remaining construction after taking over a completed building from the owner's previous owner and delivery of it, it is reasonable to view that the third party acquires the entire building that is deemed identical with the original design and construction permit as an object of ownership, and that the third party acquires the entire building as a whole, among the whole building constructed in accordance with the structure and form for which the building permit was granted, only the columns, roof, and walls of the previous building are separated from the whole building at the time of suspending the construction work, and the previous owner acquires the ownership of the previous building.

In addition, the point at which sectional ownership is constituted is, in principle, the point at which the whole building is completed and registered as a sectionally owned building in the building ledger (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1345 delivered on September 17, 199, etc.). Thus, even if the structure and form of an unbuilt building constructed by the previous owner at the time the construction work is suspended, it does not change even if the structure and form of the unbuilt building constructed by the previous owner can be the object of sectional ownership.

2. According to the facts found by the court below, the building of this case was built as apartment and sales facilities of the 18th floor above the ground, movable property housing (hereinafter “Defendant movable housing”) was interrupted due to bankruptcy after the completion of the construction of the 18th floor aggregate construction, and construction of the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 17th floor above the 17th floor above the 17th floor above the 8th floor above the 8th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 17th floor above the 8th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 18th floor above the 17th floor above the 17th floor above the 17th floor above the 18th floor above the 17th floor above the 17th floor above the 18th floor and the 1st floor below.

Thus, the plaintiff agreed to take over the buildings not yet completed in this case from the defendant's movable house and carried out the remaining construction works. From the structure and form to the point of view, the plaintiff constructed a building to the extent that it is recognized as identical to that of the original design and construction permit, and acquired the entire ownership of the building in this case.

3. Although the court below's instruction on the original acquisition of the Plaintiff's ownership is somewhat insufficient, it is just in its conclusion that the court below judged that the Plaintiff acquired the entire building of this case from the original acquisition of the entire building of this case and accepted the Plaintiff's claim, and the ground of

4. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since they differ from the instant case, such as the case where whether the land is consistent with the land.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)