[1] Whether the contractor’s efforts and the ownership of the building completed by the withdrawal belongs to the contractor (affirmative in principle)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Eul corporation acquired the ownership of the building in its original form, in case where Eul corporation acquired the ownership of the building from the co-owner of the building site and Eul corporation acquired the ownership of the building from the building site to the extent that it can be seen as an independent building under the generally accepted social norms in the structure and form by continuing the remaining construction after acquiring the ownership of the building

[1] Ownership of a building completed by the contractor’s own efforts and withdrawal shall belong to the contractor unless otherwise stipulated by a special agreement between the contractor and the contractor, or otherwise stipulated by other special circumstances.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that in case where Eul Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract for new apartment construction to co-owner of the building site Gap, Eul Co., Ltd., and Eul Co., Ltd. transferred the buildings which had been suspended due to the circumstances of Gap Co., Ltd., and completed the remaining construction, and constructed a building to the extent that it can be seen as independent building in terms of social norms from the aspect of structure and form, since there are no circumstances to deem otherwise that Eul Co-owner's co-owner's share as the contractor and Eul Co-owner's contractor

[1] Articles 187 and 664 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 187 and 664 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu11401 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 633) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da68783 Delivered on May 12, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 1035)

Plaintiff 1 and nine others (Law Firm Taean, Attorneys Min-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 and six others

Won Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm New Village, Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na17801, 2009Na22282 decided June 25, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Unless otherwise stipulated by a special agreement between the contractor and the contractor, the ownership of a building completed by the contractor’s own effort and the withdrawal shall be reverted to the contractor (see Supreme Court Decision 89Da11401, Feb. 13, 1990, etc.). In addition, in case where the contractor completed and completed the remaining construction after being handed over the building which was suspended due to the owner’s circumstances, if the contractor had the form and structure that can be regarded as an independent building under generally accepted social norms at the time of the discontinuance of the construction, the original owner shall acquire the ownership of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da68783, May 12, 2006).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The court below constructed the building in question to the extent that it can be seen as an independent building in terms of social norms on July 28, 2003 by the person holding the co-ownership right of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-dong, Seoul, 848-10 and 1646.6 meters (hereinafter "the site in this case") on the site in this case, which was contracted to construct an Ecell Integrated Construction Corporation (hereinafter "Ecell Integrated Construction") with a construction contract for the construction of an apartment building with the second and seventh floors above the ground in this case from the person holding the right to co-ownership right of the building in this case. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the construction of the building in this case, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ownership of the building in this case to the extent that the construction contractor and the person holding the right to co-ownership right of the building in this case.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)