Whether the right to move into a tenement constructed by the Seoul Metropolitan Government for the removal of buildings without permission can be the object of bona fide acquisition.

Since the right to move into a tenement house constructed for citizens who voluntarily remove an unauthorized building by Seoul Metropolitan Government is merely a position as a buyer, it cannot be the object of bona fide acquisition.

Article 249 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na843 delivered on November 16, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the first point and the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below held that the building in question was one of the several units constructed on behalf of the citizens who voluntarily remove the building without permission by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City gave to the non-party 1, a person who voluntarily removed the right to move into the building in this case through the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The plaintiff lawfully acquired the right to move into the building in this case, and kept the certificate of the non-party 1's seal impression, resident registration copy, and seal to the non-party 3 who are necessary for the contract for the sale of the house, and the non-party 4 disposed of the above related documents by theft from the non-party 3. The defendant acquired the above right to move into the building in this case which was transferred from the above non-party 4, using the related documents under the non-party 1's name, and at the same time, changed the name of the seller in the name of the defendant, and received the registration of ownership transfer from the defendant. The court below did not err in the records.

According to the above facts, the defendant's right to move in is not legally acquired by the above non-party 1, who is the original right holder of the non-party 1, but the plaintiff's right to move in through the above non-party 4 is not a legitimate transferee of the right to move in and the registration of transfer of ownership is null and void. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above registration against the plaintiff, who is a legitimate transferee of the right to move in in in succession as a legitimate transferee of the right to move in in in succession in succession, and the defendant is obligated to take over the above registration procedure for cancellation of the above registration. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the records cannot be seen as having been determined that the above non-party 1's right to move in was forfeited even after the expiration of 10 months from the date the right to move in was entered into the sale contract, and the theory cannot be established since the plaintiff's right to move in cannot be seen as lost at the time of the original registration of transfer of ownership.

According to the records, considering the third point and the reasons in the original judgment, the occupancy right in this case is merely a position as the buyer of the apartment house as seen above, and this cannot be the object of bona fide acquisition. Therefore, there is no misapprehension of legal principles in the theory of lawsuit on bona fide acquisition at the time of original purchase. Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, 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 Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)