If the building is completed under the name of the secured party, the ownership shall accrue.

If a building is constructed with the title of the building permission as a security holder for the purpose of security, the external ownership of the building at the same time as the completion of the construction is attributed to the secured party who is the title holder of the building permission.

Articles 187 and 664 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da769 Decided July 24, 1979

Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 85Na569 delivered on November 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

If a building is constructed with the title of the building as a security right, the external ownership of the building should be deemed to belong to the secured party, who is the title holder of the building permit, in terms of the purpose of the security (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da769 delivered on July 24, 1979). However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not receive the construction of the building of this case from Nonparty 2, the title holder of the building permit, but completed the construction of this case by receiving 46 building from Nonparty 3, who was supplied with the building of this case from Nonparty 2, who was supplied with the building of this case from Nonparty 2, and completed the construction of this case. In relation with Nonparty 1, the lower court did not consider that Nonparty 2 provided the title of the building of this case under the name of the title holder of the building of this case for the purpose of securing the claim, and therefore, it is reasonable to find the facts finding or legal judgment by comparing the records, and therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment below.

2. With respect to the second, third, and fourth points:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as seen in the above 1, the court below confirmed that the building of this case was newly constructed by the non-party 1 and original acquisition thereof. The plaintiff's assertion, that is, the non-party 1 sold 40 buildings including the building of this case to the non-party 4, and the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party 4 was effective in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and even if it is not so, the non-party 1 newly entrusted or ratified the ownership of the non-party 4, and further renounced all rights such as ownership of the building of this case to the non-party 4, as well as the consent or ratification of the establishment of the right to the non-party 1, the non-party 4 did not believe the non-party 1, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it, on the contrary, the non-party 4 purchased the non-party 1's original building of this case including the building of this case from the non-party 1 to the non-party 250's loan agreement or the record.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)