(a) Cases where a family member living together is regarded as an illegal occupant;

(b) A method of demanding a purchaser of an unregistered building to surrender a building to an illegal occupant;

1. The non-party’s family members living together with the original owner of the building are merely those of their possession assistant, but if the non-party, despite having sold the building and left the building, the Defendants, who were their family members, possess the building portion against the non-party’s will by alleging that the building was not owned by the non-party, the Defendants

2. In a case where the Plaintiff purchased an unregistered building but failed to register the ownership transfer, he/she may request the illegal possessor to surrender his/her name on behalf of the seller who acquired the ownership of the building in question. In this case, the Plaintiff may request the illegal possessor to surrender himself/herself directly.

Articles 195 and 404 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na934 delivered on October 10, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff newly constructed the building at issue in this case and purchased the building without being registered by the non-party who originally acquired the ownership. The non-party was a director of the building at the above building, but his mother or wife living with the non-party, who was living with the non-party, is still occupying each part of the building at the time of original adjudication.

In this case, the non-party is obligated to file a transfer registration in order to have the plaintiff acquire ownership, and the plaintiff is obligated to cooperate so that it does not interfere with the plaintiff's complete exercise of rights on the building. Meanwhile, the defendants are the non-party living together with the non-party living together with the above non-party, and only the non-party living together with the above non-party, and the defendants were possessed assistant. However, as in the case of this case, although the defendants already sold the above building and moved out, if they occupy the above building against the intention of the non-party by asserting that the building is not owned by the non-party, the defendants cannot be deemed to have legitimate right to possession. Accordingly, in relation to the non-party living with the non-party who is the owner, the plaintiff is illegal, and even if the plaintiff was not the owner, the plaintiff can request the plaintiff to act on behalf of the non-party who is the illegal possessor, the seller, and even if the plaintiff can directly claim the defendants' name.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below which accepted the plaintiff's claim is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the subrogation of the right to request for clarification, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the motive duty, and thus, it is not accepted as a whole

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit and is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are jointly borne by the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Gi-port (Presiding Justice)