(a) A case holding that there was an implied agreement that the ownership of a building completed since the construction contract was concluded to vest in the contractor in the original condition;

(b) In the case of a contract for construction work, a contract was made to prevent a subcontractor from subcontracting any part of the construction work without the approval of the contractor, and the ownership of the new construction work belongs to the contractor, and the third party subcontracted the construction work without the approval of the contractor, the ownership of the new construction work belongs to the owner of the new construction work

A. The case holding that it is reasonable to view that there was an implied agreement between the contractor and the contractor that the ownership of the completed building from the time of the contract for the construction work should be reverted to the contractor, in case where the contract was made after the completion of the construction work, the contractor was decided to pay the construction work after the completion of the construction work, the payment was made in partial installments, and the contract was made until the completion of the construction work and the contract was delivered in full, and the contractor was already paid an amount equivalent to 95% of the contract price to the contractor in accordance with the contract.

B. When a contractor awards a contract to a contractor for a construction work, the contractor agreed that no part of the construction work may be subcontracted without the approval of the contractor, but the contractor awarded a subcontract to a third party without the approval of the contractor, and if there was an agreement between the contractor and the contractor that the ownership of the new building should be reverted to the contractor, even if the third party paid a subcontract with his materials and efforts, the ownership of the building newly constructed for the construction work belongs to the contractor as a matter of course, as in the case where the contractor directly executes the construction work.

Articles 64 and 665 of the Civil Act

Appellant 1 and four re-Appellants, Attorneys Lee Won-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants

Seoul High Court Order 94Ra125 Dated September 22, 1994

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In examining the records, the decision of the court below that the Respondent Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Co., Ltd.) did not obtain approval from the Respondent Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Co., Ltd.) when he subcontracted part of the wastewater treatment facility construction of this case to the applicants, is just, and the decision of the court below is not erroneous in finding facts contrary to the empirical rule.

2. On the third ground for appeal

According to the contract for construction works made between the Respondent and the non-applicant company, the payment of the construction cost was made after the examination by the Respondent after the construction work (Article 18), and it was recognized that the Respondent made a partial payment on the basis of the Respondent and the risk burden on the part transferred by the Respondent was agreed upon by the Respondent until the Respondent was completed and delivered in full. As recognized by the court below, in case where the Respondent union has already paid the amount equivalent to 95% of the construction cost to the non-applicant company in accordance with the Respondent's order of the construction work, it is reasonable to deem that there was an implied agreement between the Respondent and the non-applicant company, that the ownership of the completed building from the time of the contract for construction work should be reverted to the Respondent, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the special agreement on the reversion of ownership.

3. On the second ground for appeal

As legally determined by the court below, although the respondent contracted the construction of this case to the non-applicant company, the non-applicant company agreed not to subcontract any part of the above construction without obtaining the approval of the respondent union, the non-applicant company subcontracted part of the above construction to the applicant without obtaining the approval of the respondent union, and there was an agreement between the respondent union and the applicant company that the ownership of the new building belongs to the respondent union. Thus, even if the respondent paid the above subcontract with his material and effort, the non-applicant company's ownership of the new building constructed by the construction belongs to the respondent union as a matter of course, as in the relationship with the non-applicant company, the contractor company directly executes the construction work.

The order of the court below to this purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of ownership in contract relations.

4. Therefore, all of the reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition on the ground that the arguments are without merit.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)