Assignment of Indirect Possessory Right

Even if the Nonparty purchased the instant building and sold it to the Plaintiff after the Nonparty sold it to the Plaintiff, the sales act does not automatically assign indirect right to the said Nonparty’s main building, but the assignment of possessory right to the said building takes effect only by delivery of possession of the object.

Articles 194 and 196 of the Civil Act

Chowon-hee

Lee Young-young et al.

Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Court (78Gahap735 delivered on July 1, 201)

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Lee Young-gun, the plaintiff, 271 square meters in 18 square meters in 271 square meters in 18 square meters in 271 square meters in 18 square meters in 15 square meters in 277 square meters in 15 square meters in 19, 3 square meters in 14 square meters in 274 square meters in 339 of the Sin-ri-ri-ri, Yang Young-gu, Yang Young-gu, Yang Young-gun, Gyeonggi-do. The plaintiff was Lee Young-gu's defendant Lee Young-gu's 64 square in 3 square meters in 3 square meters in 3 square meters in the above building; the defendant Han-gu's Yung-dong's 1, 5 square meters in 1, 41, 71, 1 (a), (c), 37 (d), 37) and (5) of the above 37 square meters in 2012.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The defendants have the same judgment as the disposition.

The fact that 64 10 71 square meters from the 339 Miscellaneous land in Yangju-gun, Yangju-gun, Gyeonggi-do and 271 square meters from the 339 Miscellaneous land (82 square meters) and on the ground mentmenbu-ju, 18 square meters from the 1st, 7th 7th Gamen from the 1st, and the 1st mentmen, mentmen, and chip from the 339 luxa, and that the defendant occupied the part claimed in the above building, there is no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff sold the above building site and building to the non-party, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party, etc. as to the building site, and changed only the ownership on the tax ledger because the building was not registered because it was without permission, and then used the above building by designating the above building as 90,000 won per month from the above non-party, etc., and the above defendant did not pay the rent from February 1978, and also moved into the above building. Since the above non-party's two parties did not pay the rent from the above building to the non-party, they sold the above building to the plaintiff on June 15, 1978 after the notification of the termination of the above building lease to the non-party Lee Young-man on May 1978, and the plaintiff was assigned the right of possession of the above building from the non-party, and therefore, the plaintiff asserted that he occupied the above building without the title to recover the possession of the building (the plaintiff purchased the building from the court below to the non-party, etc. by changing the reason for the plaintiff.).

Even if the above non-party, etc. purchased the building on the part of this case and sold it to the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff, it does not naturally assign the right to possess the building on the part of this case, which is the real estate of the above non-party, etc. (the indirect right of possession under Article 194 of the Civil Act) due to the sale act, and the transfer of the right to possess the real estate takes effect only as the delivery of the possession (it is not recognized that delivery by transfer of the right to request the return under Article 190 of the Civil Act is not permitted for the real estate). According to the plaintiff's former purport of the oral argument, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff was assigned the right to possess the building on the part of this case, and according to the purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff's claim of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit on the premise that the right to possess the building on the part of this case was transferred to the plaintiff, and it is no longer necessary to determine.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be dismissed unfairly, and the original judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is justified, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost the plaintiff, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-soo (Presiding Judge)