In cases where the title of a building permit for a building newly built by a debtor with his/her own expense and effort for debt security and the registration of preservation of ownership is made in the name of the creditor, whether the creditor may seek an explanation against the tenant who purchased the building from the debtor on the ground that he/she is the owner of the building

If the name of the building permit of a building newly constructed by the debtor in his/her own cost and effort to secure the obligation is the name of the creditor, it is an agreement to provide the building to be completed as a security, and since it is not the establishment of the security right by the juristic act, the ownership of the completed building should be transferred to the creditor within the scope of the purpose of security by completing the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the creditor after the debtor acquired it from the original acquisitor, so the creditor cannot seek such explanation against the person who moves into the building legally by the original acquisitor, on the ground that he/she is the owner of the building.

[Transfer for Security] Article 372 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1050, Nov. 22, 1988) (Law No. 1989, Nov. 24, 1990) (Law No. 1990, Nov. 135, 199)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na3024 delivered on April 2, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, the non-party 1 purchased the land owned by the plaintiff from the plaintiff on June 20, 1985 141,00,000 won, and paid 50,000,000 won for the remainder of 91,00,000 won for the non-party 1 among the multi-household houses of 4,36 households newly constructed on the above land, in the name of the plaintiff, the construction permit of 2,18 households, including the building of this case, shall be received in the name of the plaintiff, but the above remaining price shall be paid preferentially to the plaintiff from the sale price for the 18 households under the name of the above 18 households. Since the non-party 1 received the above 14,00,000 won for the above 1986 house under the name of the plaintiff, the non-party 1 was not entitled to the above 10,000 won for the purpose of securing the ownership right of the above 10,000,00,00 won for the above land.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)