2014Na2042842 Implementation of procedures for change of the name of project owner

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney ○-○, et al.

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gahap15148 Decided October 10, 2014

September 11, 2015

November 27, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall grant permission to the plaintiff in attached Form 1 and report on the construction of structures in attached Form 2.

each name change procedure of the Corporation shall be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows: 1. Basic facts are from one to another; therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Relevant legal principles

The change of the name of the building owner in the name of the building owner is necessary for continuing the construction of the building on the unbuilt building or for preserving the ownership of the building in accordance with the Registration of Real Estate Act, etc. after the construction is completed, and thus, the transferee of the building in the process of registration of ownership is interested in the lawsuit against the transferor. However, in the case of the building for which the construction is completed and the registration of ownership preservation is completed, the name of the building owner is not required to be changed because the construction is no longer in accordance with the already permitted contents. Moreover, even if the name of the building owner is changed because it is not the method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of the substantive rights on the building, it does not affect

5.9. The above building has no interest in filing a lawsuit for the change of the owner's name with respect to the above building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da61010, Jul. 6, 2006). However, in a case where the registration of preservation of ownership was completed without completing all the procedures for various reports, applications, etc. under the Building Act, which were completed to be viewed as an independent building, until the legitimate use of the building was completed, the original acquisitor of the building can complete the construction in accordance with the permitted contents of the Building Act by changing his name in the name of the owner and implementing all the procedures for the change of the owner's name under the Building Act. Thus, in such a case, a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for the change of the owner's name cannot be denied, or where the building owner has obtained approval for the use as the final procedure for the building permission under the Building Act and has no interest in filing a lawsuit for the change of the owner's name (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du9.

2. 12. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da72844 Decided 12.

B. In the instant case

The plaintiff himself entrusted the building permit of this case and the building installation report of this case to the defendant, but since the title trust was terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to implement the procedure to change the name of the building permit of this case and the building installation report to the plaintiff.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 38-40, each of the construction works on the instant multi-household B building, around May 2014, when the owner of the instant construction permit was under construction works on the instant multi-household B building, the fact that the name of the building owner was changed from the Defendant to the lower court on August 11, 2014, the approval for use of the name of the dedicated to the instant building was made on August 11, 2014, and the registration for preservation of ownership in the name of the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the instant

9. The fact that the registration of transfer of ownership has been completed on September 22, 2014 in the name of ○○ Co., Ltd. on September 22, 2014

As can be seen, construction works on multi-household B building of this case are completed by the dedicated unit that received from the defendant in the name of the owner, and as long as approval for use and registration of preservation of ownership are completed under the name of the owner, construction according to the construction permit of this case cannot be any more. Therefore, there is no need to change the name of the owner. Moreover, even if the name of the owner is changed because it is not the method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of substantive rights as to the above building, it does not affect the substantive legal relationship of the above building, and therefore, the plaintiff does not have any interest in filing a lawsuit to request the change of the name of the owner of the above building

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is inappropriate, the judgment of the court of first instance accepting the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, but the bearing of total costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying the latter part of Articles 105, 98, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Oral of the presiding judge

Judges Oh Jeong-tae

Judge Maximum Wol-man