If the purpose building is registered in the name of a third party in a lawsuit claiming removal of the building, the party who is entitled to become the defendant

In a lawsuit seeking removal of articles that are the object of ownership independently from land, such as a building, the current owner shall be the owner, and the present owner shall be the owner on the current registry as long as the registration is not null and void under the new civil law that adopts the form principle as to the change in real property rights, and it shall not be the de facto owner who can claim the ownership of the owner on the registry.

Gwangju Passenger Transport Corporation

The number of red papers, chronrons, chronrons

Gwangju District Court Decision 64Na435 delivered on December 15, 1964

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant's agent is examined.

According to the original judgment and the records, the plaintiff owned the building site of this case, and the defendant owned the building site without any title on the building site and sought removal thereof from the defendant, and the building of this case is not owned by the defendant and is seeking removal thereof from the defendant. Thus, it is not reasonable to conclude that the defendant is not qualified.

However, in a lawsuit seeking removal of articles that are the object of ownership independently from the land as a building, the current owner shall be against the current owner, and the current owner shall be the owner as of the date of the first registration, unless the registration is the most null and void due to the collusion in collusion, and as long as the registration is not the most null and void due to changes in real rights in real rights, it shall not be the actual owner who can claim the ownership of the owner as of the date of the first registration. However, although the court below recognizes the fact that the present building has been a preservation registration under the name of Hong Fhee, even though it can determine the fact that the actual ownership of the building was registered under the current name of Hong Fhee, without clarifying the validity of the registration, the actual ownership of the building can be confirmed by confession, and it shall not be erroneous to accept the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff, and it shall

Therefore, without any further proceeding to decide on the other grounds of appeal, the appeal is justifiable. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Mag-Dog-Appellee (Presiding Justice)