(a) Efforts of contractors and ownership of a building completed by withdrawal;

(b) Where a special contract on the ownership of a building between a contractor and a contractor should be deemed to have been approved by the subcontractor;

(a)the ownership of a building completed by the contractor’s own effort and the withdrawal shall belong to the contractor unless otherwise determined by a special agreement between the contractor and the contractor, or in other special circumstances;

B. In the contract for construction work between a contractor and a contractor, a new contract between the contractor and the subcontractor shall vest in the ownership of the contractor, and the subcontractor and the subcontractor have not entered into an agreement that conflict with the above special agreement in the original contract, and if no objection is raised, the subcontractor shall be deemed to have approved the validity of the above special agreement.

Article 664 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 71Da2541, 2542 delivered on February 29, 1972, 80Da1014 delivered on July 8, 1980, 80Da177 delivered on November 27, 1984

Gohap Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and four others

[Defendant-Appellee] Law Office (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na10741 Decided April 7, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that, based on macroficial evidence, the plaintiff newly constructed a new construction of the instant public warrant building by entering into a subcontract from COSFz and passed a completion inspection on April 21, 1987, and delivered it to the defendant who is the original contractor at that time.

According to the records, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff newly constructed the performance hall of this case and delivered it to the defendant, and rather, the witness white semester, which was not rejected by the court below, did not open the performance hall of this case due to the construction cost between the plaintiff and the non-party company of this case. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff delivered the performance hall of this case to the defendant was erroneous as to the violation of the rules of evidence which recognized facts, instead of the evidence.

However, as seen later, in this case where the ownership of the instant performance hall is not recognized to be owned by the Plaintiff and the claim for confirmation of ownership is rejected, the error of the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the rules of evidence cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument on this point is groundless.

2. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 피고와 소외 주식회사 코스모스엔터프라이즈 사이의 원도급계약이 해제로 실효되었다는 원고의 주장에 대하여 원심은 피고 소송대리인의 1988.9.30.자 준비서면의 기재를 보면 피고와 소외 주식회사 코스모엔터프라이즈 사이에는 이 사건 공연장의 공사에 관한 계약뿐 아니라 옥외광고물 설치 및 운영약정도 함께 체결하였는데 옥외광고물설치 공사는 위 소외 회사가 제대로 이행하지 아니하고, 또 이 사건 공연장에 관한 공사에 있어서는 위 소외 회사의 무자력으로 인하여 하수급인인 원고에게 공사대금을 제대로 지급하지 않는 등 말썽이 일던 중 피고가 1987.4.7.경 위 2개공사의 약정 중 옥외광고물설치 및 운영약정을 해제하였다는 주장만 있을 뿐이지 이 사건 공연장의 공사에 관한 계약마저 해제하였다는 주장은 없으므로 원고 소송대리인의 위 주장은 이유없다고 판시하고 있는 바, 기록에 의하여 살펴보면 원심의 판단은 옳고 거기에 당사자변론의 취지를 오해하고 자백에 반하여 사실을 그릇 인정한 잘못이 있다 할 수 없으니 이 점에 관한 논지는 이유없다.

In addition, the author argues that the original contract agreement between the defendant and the above non-party company was null and void because it did not enter into a contract within 10 days, which is the term stipulated in the contract, and the court below held that the plaintiff, the subcontractor, cannot reject any special agreement on the reversion of ownership between the defendant and the above non-party company, the original contractor, on the premise that the original contract remains effective. However, according to the records, the fact that the original contract agreement was null and void due to the above reasons is a new fact alleged by the plaintiff only in the final appeal, and it is obvious that it was not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Determination on grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 5

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established a new construction plan of the Seoul Forestland Park on August 19, 1986 between the non-party corporation and the non-party corporation on August 19, 1986, and newly constructed the performance hall of this case at the expense of the above non-party corporation to vest its ownership for 10 years from the completion date. The non-party company established the convenience facility within the park and vest its ownership in the defendant, but the non-party company did not have the right to select sales items and exclusive suppliers at its own expense for 10 years from its own expense. The non-party company did not have the right to sell the facility and exclusive suppliers at its own expense. The non-party company established the above new construction plan of the non-party corporation on October 8, 198, and transferred the above construction price to the non-party corporation 1, the non-party corporation and the non-party corporation 1, the non-party corporation's new construction contract of this case to the non-party 1, the non-party corporation's new construction work price of this case 30.

The ownership of a building completed by the contractor's own efforts and withdrawal shall be deemed to be reverted to the contractor unless otherwise stipulated by a special agreement between the contractor and the contractor, or otherwise stipulated by other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da177, Nov. 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1014, Jul. 8, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 71Da2541, 2542, Feb. 29, 1972).

However, in this case, as duly determined by the court below, the court below entered into a contract for construction between the defendant and the defendant, the contractor for the construction of the performance hall of this case, and the contract was newly constructed at the contractor's expense and entered into an agreement with the defendant to vest in the ownership of the defendant, and the construction of the facility was recognized to have the plaintiff company designated by the contractor on the contractor's responsibility (Evidence 1). The contract status of the above contractor was transferred as it is to the above OSNz, the subcontractor, and according to the record, the plaintiff designated as the contractor on the original contract as the contractor on the performance hall of this case did not enter into an agreement in conflict with the above OSNz on the ownership agreement of the original contract, and the plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto, and therefore the plaintiff should be deemed to have approved the validity of the above special agreement.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is insufficient, it is justified in the conclusion that the ownership of the performance hall of this case belongs to the defendant in accordance with the validity of the above special agreement and rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case. Thus, there is no basis to discuss this point.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)