beta
Text
1. Defendant C:
(a) Of the area D 129 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-si D, Yangyang-gu, Seoul, D, D, D, E, F, G, each of the attached drawings.
Reasons
1. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 129 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
Defendant B owned a building of 180 square meters adjacent to the instant land, and Defendant C, the husband of Defendant B, was to construct and own a building without permission (hereinafter “instant building”) on the said land, and transferred the said building to Defendant B.
However, among the buildings of this case, part 9 square meters in the ship connecting each point of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and A, among the buildings of this case, are invaded by the land of this case owned by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 evidence, each of the records, the result of the measurement and appraisal commission to the President of the Goyangyang District of the Korea Land Information Corporation (Expert F), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B (1) Since the new construction of an unauthorized building is an acquisition of a real right that is not by a juristic act, the new constructor would acquire the ownership without registration. However, if it is transferred, it cannot be transferred by the act of a real right and delivery without registration. Thus, even if the possessor purchased it from the new building without registration and occupies it by delivery, the possessor cannot acquire the ownership, and the new constructor cannot be deemed to have lost the right to dispose of the building under the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da43594, Nov. 28, 1997). In addition, the buyer of an unregistered unauthorized building cannot acquire the ownership of the building unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed, and cannot be said to have a customary real right corresponding to the ownership, and it is difficult to recognize the comprehensive right or legal status that is de facto ownership under the current law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da64782, Feb. 13, 2014).