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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) deemed that the use of the building and the right to benefit of the building of this case were reverted to the deceased S or an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “participating”); and (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff lost the title to seek delivery, etc. of the building of this case; and (c) on the ground that the right to claim delivery belongs to the intervenors, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to deliver to the intervenors the portions of the building of this case, and to pay undue

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Even if a transferee of an unregistered building is not able to acquire ownership of the building unless the registration of ownership transfer is completed, and it is difficult to recognize any comprehensive rights or legal status that is de facto ownership under the current law or beneficial rights to use equivalent to ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da53006, Jun. 14, 1996; 2006Da49000, Oct. 27, 2006). A transferee of an unregistered building cannot directly demand the illegal occupant to transfer his/her ownership, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11347, Jun. 15, 2007). In such a case, the original acquisitor of an unregistered building still holds the ownership of the unregistered building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da43594, Nov. 28, 1997). As such, the original acquisitor of an unregistered building may seek the return of the building against an illegal occupant.

On the other hand, when the plaintiff's legal status is at an unstable risk, it is recognized that a judgment of confirmation is rendered where it is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such unstable risk, and even though it is possible to bring a lawsuit for confirmation to claim performance, it is not a final solution of dispute, and therefore there is no benefit of confirmation.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided March 9, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239 Decided July 10, 2008