[1] The original acquisitor of the ownership (=the original owner) in a case where the construction is completed after delivery of an incomplete building, which can be seen as an independent building under social norms

[2] The case holding that the original owner's ownership of the completed building is the original owner's original acquisition in case where a new owner who had been performing construction works upon delivery of about 50% of the completed building from the original owner had ceased to do so due to a default, and the third party has completed the remaining construction

[1] In a case where the building owner completed the remaining construction after delivery of a completed building, which had been interrupted due to the circumstances of the building owner, and completed the construction, if the construction has a type and structure that can be viewed as independent building under the social norms at the time of the discontinuance of the construction, the original owner shall acquire the ownership of the building at

[2] The case holding that when the original owner of a building was unable to continue the construction due to the failure to continue the construction due to the completion of the entire structural frame and roof construction up to the fourth floor due to the completion of the construction of the entire 4th floor and the construction of the 45% to the plaintiff, the owner of the building under the construction permit changed the name of the building owner to the plaintiff and completed the construction of about 20% process, but the plaintiff also suspended the construction due to the failure to pay taxes, and the buyer, etc. who purchased part of the building directly performed the remaining construction of the building and occupied part of the building without the completion of the registration of preservation of ownership, at the time of changing the owner's name under the construction permit, the building was in the form and structure that can be deemed as an independent building by social norms, since it was in the state of completion of the construction of the entire structural frame and roof

[1] Article 664 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 664 of the Civil Code

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1659 delivered on June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1280) Supreme Court Decision 93Da1527, 1534 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1534)

Kim Dong-dong (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Park Jong-he et al. (Attorney Park Young-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Na12255 delivered on October 31, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if the building was delivered to the building owner and completed the remaining construction due to the circumstances of the building owner, if the building had a form and structure that can be viewed as independent building under social norms at the time the construction was interrupted, it is reasonable to view that the original owner acquired the ownership of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da1527, 1534 delivered on April 23, 1993).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below by comparing the admitted evidence with the records, the court below changed the name of the owner of the building of this case to the plaintiff on July 4, 1992 after obtaining a building permit of 287 permanent residence of Jung-gu, Busan, and the construction of the building of this case, which is the apartment house of 4th to 5% of the total 45% and 50% of the construction, on the site of 287, while the construction of the new building of this case was being implemented, it was no longer possible for the plaintiff to continue the construction due to the failure to complete the construction due to the completion of the construction due to the fact that the non-party company's representative director and the plaintiff changed the name of the owner of the building of this case to the new building of this case to the new building of this case on the premise that the non-party company did not acquire the ownership of the remaining building of this case on the premise that the non-party company's new building of this case was no more than 19% of the construction cost for the new building of this case.

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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)