[1] The legal nature of the building permit, and whether the owner of the building under construction should coincide with the owner of the building permit (negative)

[2] Whether the transferee of a building under construction has the interest in a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for change of name against the transferor who did not consent to the change of name (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a transferor of a building under construction continues to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership against the nominal owner, whether the transferee of the building has the interest in filing a lawsuit seeking implementation of the procedure for change of title by subrogation of the transferor (affirmative)

[4] The time when a partner loses his/her status as a partner for the transfer of partnership shares (=the time of an agreement for transfer and takeover), and the method of determining whether there was an agreement between the parties on the transfer and takeover

[1] Building permission is an administrative disposition that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu et al. shall not, in order to accomplish the purpose of building administration, restore a relative prohibition that an authorized person shall not conduct construction without the permission of an administrative agency to a certain case in conformity with the relevant laws and regulations, and does not grant the permitted person new rights or ability. Moreover, building permission is not a method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of the substantive rights to the permitted building, but it is not a method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of the real rights to the permitted building, and it does not necessarily mean that the owner entered in the building permission form as the building owner does

[2] A transferee of a building under construction needs to change the name of the building owner in order to continue the construction work after reporting to the administrative agency necessary for the progress of the construction work. Since it is necessary to change the name of the building owner even in order to apply for the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the transferee after registering it as the owner in the building management ledger after completion of the construction, if the transferor of the building under construction does not consent to the change of the name of the building owner, the transferee

[3] Even if the transferor of a building under construction is pending in the process of filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of the building against the owner of the building permit, the transferee of the building needs to obtain a judgment in lieu of his/her expression of intent against the owner of the building permit who does not consent to the change of the owner of the building, in addition to the claim for confirmation of ownership by subrogation of the transferor, in order to continue the construction work in the future or to adjust the management ledger of the building after completion

[4] A union member may dispose of his/her shares with the consent of all other union members, but cannot dispose of his/her shares separately from the qualification of union member in light of the purpose and organization of the union. Thus, if a union member transfers his/her shares, he/she would lose the status of union member. The change in the status of union member becomes effective immediately by the agreement on the transfer and takeover of union shares. Meanwhile, whether there is an agreement on the transfer and takeover of union shares between the parties is in accordance with the general principles of interpretation of legal act. In cases where there is a conflict of opinion between the parties about the interpretation of a contract, the interpretation of the parties' intent expressed in a disposition document is at issue, the contents of the text, motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties

[1] Articles 186 and 187 of the Civil Act, Article 11 of the Building Act / [2] Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 2(1)12, and Article 16 of the Building Act / [3] Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)12, and Article 16 of the Building Act / [4] Articles 105 and 703 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da10638 delivered on March 28, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1202) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da16350 Delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1234) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da6754 Delivered on May 9, 1989 (Gong1989, 896) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Da23574 Delivered on February 27, 2001 (Gong201Sang, 765) (Gong202Da23482 Delivered on June 28, 2002) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da6754 delivered on June 27, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2002Da27474 decided May 27, 2005.

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 et al., the taking over of the lawsuit of the deceased Nonparty

Intervenor Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han & Lee, Attorneys Song Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na56556 Decided April 19, 2006

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A building permit is an administrative disposition to recover a certain building act by cancelling a relative prohibition that an administrative agency, such as the head of a Si/Gun, should not conduct a building act without the permission of an administrative agency in order to achieve the purpose of the building administration, and it is an administrative disposition that restores the permitted person to conduct a certain building act by cancelling it in conformity with the relevant laws and regulations, not a new right or ability. Since a building permit does not include a method of public announcement of the acquisition and loss of substantive rights as to the permitted building, and there is no presumption of power, a person entered in the building permit in the construction permit report does not acquire ownership (Supreme Court Decision 96Da10638 delivered on March 28, 197), and the owner of a building under construction need not necessarily coincide with the building permit owner. In addition, a transferee of a building under construction need to change the name in order to continue the construction work and register the building owner as the owner after completion inspection and file an application for registration of ownership preservation in the name of the transferee, and therefore, it is necessary to obtain a decision in lieu of the owner's declaration of intention.

In light of the above legal principles, even if Gyeongnam Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongnam Enterprise”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking confirmation of ownership of the instant building under construction, the Plaintiffs who acquired the instant building shares from the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeongnam Enterprise on behalf of the Gyeong

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiffs can request the performance of the procedure for changing the name of the owner of the building of this case on behalf of the Gyeongnam company as long as the Gyeongnam company does not exercise the right to claim the performance of the procedure for changing the name of the owner of the building of this case, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for exercising the right of subrogation as otherwise

2. On the second ground for appeal

A union member may dispose of his/her shares with the consent of all other union members, but can not dispose of his/her shares separately from the qualification as a union member in light of the purpose and organization of the union. As such, if a union member transfers his/her shares, he/she loses his/her status as a union member, and the change in the status of union member becomes effective immediately through an agreement on the transfer and takeover of union shares. On the other hand, whether there exists an agreement on the transfer and takeover of union shares between the parties shall be in accordance with the general principles of interpretation of juristic acts. In cases where there is a conflict of opinion between the parties about the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the parties expressed in a disposition document is at issue, the contents of the text, motive and circumstance of such agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties' genuine intent, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da6726

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 5 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 9 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the new non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the new non-party 1 and the new non-party 1 and the new non-party 1 and the new non-party 1 and the non-party 1 will.

However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept.

Even according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, all the agreement entered into with the remaining companies prior to the agreement of this case with the remaining companies is terminated, the new agreement of this case succeeds to the remaining companies with respect to the initial agreement of August 16, 1994, and the non-party, after the agreement of this case, will not raise an objection to the new agreement of this case. The new agreement of this case reaches 9.321 billion won for the sale deposit to the remaining companies at the same time as the new agreement of this case (the new agreement of this case shall be deemed to be 1.65 billion won for the new agreement of this case and the total investment expenses, including the cost of the new agreement of the building site and the profits of the shares of the remaining companies, and the new agreement of this case shall not be paid to the remaining companies after the completion of the new agreement of the new agreement of this case with the remaining companies, and the new agreement of this case shall not be paid to the remaining companies after the completion of the new agreement of the new agreement of sale in lots and the new agreement of this case.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the agreement of this case between the non-party and the non-party to maintain the status of the contractor and to continue to participate in the construction work of this case as the non-party to the agreement of this case for smooth completion of the agreement of this case after the agreement of this case. It is reasonable to view that the new agreement of this case between the non-party to the agreement of this case and the non-party to the new agreement of this case for smooth completion of the new agreement of this case as the non-party to the new agreement of this case and the new agreement of this case, including the shares of the non-party to the new agreement of this case and the new agreement of the non-party to the new agreement of this case. The new agreement of this case to maintain the status of the new agreement of the non-party to the new agreement of this case and the new agreement of the non-party to the new agreement of this case to be entered into in the new agreement of this case as the new agreement of this case and the new agreement of this case to be entered into by the non-party to the new agreement of this case as the new agreement of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the agreement in this case cannot be interpreted as a transfer of share in a joint project and an expression of intent to withdraw from a joint project solely based on its stated reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal meaning of the agreement in this case in violation of the empirical rule and logical rules or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in interpreting the legal meaning of the agreement in this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)