[1] Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State for unregistered buildings (negative)

[2] Whether the judgment of confirming ownership of an unregistered building against the State constitutes a judgment under Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (negative)

[1] A lawsuit for confirmation is permitted where there is a benefit to immediately determine the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute. Thus, in order to seek confirmation of ownership against a country which does not dispute ownership, there are special circumstances where it is effective to eliminate the plaintiff's legal status unstable. In the case of a building, the keeping and management of a house ledger or a building management ledger cannot be deemed as a state's inherent affairs, and the state does not specifically dispute over the ownership of the building in question, the state is not in a position to confirm it because it is not a party to a direct dispute over the ownership. Thus, seeking confirmation of ownership of an unregistered building against the State is unlawful because there is no benefit to confirm it.

[2] Even if a judgment is rendered against the State on confirmation of ownership regarding unregistered buildings, such judgment cannot be deemed as a judgment falling under Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and thus, an application for registration of ownership preservation cannot be made based thereon.

[1] Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da20464 decided May 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2100)

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 98Na10936 delivered on November 27, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the part concerning the defendant's Republic of Korea among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even though the defendant did not dispute about the ownership of the apartment of this case, the court below held that the apartment of this case cannot be registered for the preservation of ownership since 130 of co-owners on the building management ledger cannot be specified. Thus, the above 130 apartment of this case is a legal interest in seeking confirmation that the apartment of this case is owned by the co-defendant of the court of first instance

However, a lawsuit for confirmation is permitted where there is a benefit to immediately confirm the current rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute. Thus, in order to seek confirmation of ownership against a country which does not dispute ownership, there is a special circumstance where it is effective to eliminate the uncertainty of legal status of the plaintiff. In the case of a building, the keeping and management of the house ledger or the building management ledger cannot be deemed as the state affairs as its own affairs of the relevant local government. In the case of this case where the state does not specifically dispute over the ownership of the apartment of this case, the state is not in a position to confirm it because it is not a party to a direct dispute over the ownership ownership, and even if it is judged to confirm the ownership of the apartment of this case against the State, it cannot be deemed as a judgment falling under Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and therefore, it cannot be applied for registration of ownership preservation based on this (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da20464 delivered on May 12, 195).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership of the above apartment in the first instance trial against the state is that it has no particular effectiveness in removing the plaintiff's legal status, and it is unlawful as it does not have any interest in confirmation. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in confirmation and maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim for confirmation. The appeal on this point is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the decision of the Supreme Court is to be made voluntarily pursuant to Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which cited the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of this case against the defendant is obvious as seen above, the part concerning the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)