Where the owner of a building in another person's site completes the building by selling it to and transferring it to another person, but there is no name on the register, the possessor of the site.

A person who owns a building on another's land shall occupy the site of the building, even if he transfers the building to another person, and even if the transfer of the building is completed, if the building is under the name of the transferor on the registry and the landowner has already made a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of the building to the transferor, the transferor cannot oppose the transfer of the building to the landowner, and therefore, in relation to the land owner by law, the owner of the building shall occupy the site, which is the site.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Maximum Gyeong-ho

Burial Water

Seoul High Court Decision 61No306 delivered on August 31, 1961

The defendant's main appeal is dismissed.

Upon the plaintiff's appeal, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

First, the defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In comparison with the evidence cited by the court below, the land of this case was originally purchased on March 16, 1955 from the family heir's due diligence of the family head on March 26, 1956, and the plaintiff purchased 50 square meters of the land of this case from November 8, 1955 and the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff's name was directly purchased on March 26, 1959, with respect to the land of this case purchased 50 square meters from the land of this case purchased on November 8, 1955, and the land of this case was purchased on March 14, 1960. The decision of the court below on March 14, 1960 on the particulars of the acquisition of the plaintiff's land of this case was correct, but there is no reason in the ground of appeal on the same ground as the judgment of the court below that there was no difference in the ownership of the land of this case.

Concerning the second ground for appeal

As the reasons why the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case are as explained above, and according to the above explanation, it was determined that the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case, so even if the Defendant sold the building of this case, there is no room for the establishment of legal superficies like the paper. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is obvious that the decision of the court below is the purport of the judgment of the court below as to the Defendant's legal superficies, and it is nothing more than that added to the above decision. Therefore, even if the legal judgment of this case was illegal as discussed above, the conclusion of the original judgment does not affect the conclusion of the original judgment, and there is no reason to support the original judgment by attacking the legal judgment.

Concerning the third ground for appeal

In the case of a provisional disposition under the Civil Procedure Act, the effect of a juristic act in violation of the provisional disposition cannot be set up against the creditor of the provisional disposition under the law, and in this case, the building in question is the name of the defendant and the plaintiff has obtained the decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the building in this case against the defendant on May 27, 1959. Thus, the court below legitimately recognized that the court below did not have the previous registration, even though it was an act of disposal after the above provisional disposition decision, it cannot be set up against the plaintiff, who is the creditor of the provisional disposition, and in relation to the plaintiff, it cannot be set up against the plaintiff, who is the owner of the building in this case. Therefore, the plaintiff can demand the removal of the building in this case

Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A person who owns a building on the land of another person shall occupy the site of the building, and even if the transfer of the building is completed, if it is impossible to oppose the transfer for legal reasons, the transferor shall possess the site as the owner of the building under law. The court below rejected the plaintiff's above claim on the ground that the defendant sold the building on April 7, 1958, which was the building to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party, in accordance with the evidence of acceptance, and that the building and its site are delivered to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to the contract, but the court below recognized the provisional disposition on the prohibition of the disposal of the building on the part of the plaintiff to the defendant on May 27, 1959. Therefore, in a legal relationship with the plaintiff to the plaintiff, the defendant cannot oppose the transfer of the building on the land, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is justified.

Therefore, by applying Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man