(a) The ownership of a building newly built under the building construction contract;

(b) The case holding that, if the name of the construction permit was made on the part of the contractor, and the contractor has agreed on the premise that the ownership of the building was acquired, the contractor has agreed on the original ownership of the building, even if the contractor carried out the construction in his effort and materials;

(a) A person who generally constructs a building in his own effort and materials shall acquire the ownership of the building in original condition: Provided, That in the case of a contract for work, if it is deemed that the contractor and the contractor agree to vest the ownership of the completed building, such as obtaining a construction permit under the name of the contractor and obtaining a registration of preservation of ownership, even if the contractor completed the building in their own effort and materials, the ownership of the building shall be reverted to the contractor in original condition;

(b) The case holding that, if an agreement was made on the premise that a contractor acquires ownership of a building completed by the contractor, such as the payment of the unpaid amount of the construction work, payment in kind, or provisional registration of ownership of the building is made against the contractor, the contractor shall vest in the original ownership of the building regardless of its delivery or payment of the construction work, even though the contractor had an independent form of building under social norms at the time of suspension and progress of the construction work by 80% of the above construction work with his efforts and materials, even though the contractor had an independent form of building under social norms at the time of its suspension, the original ownership of the building shall vest in the contractor, regardless of whether it is delivered

(b)Article 664 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2234 delivered on May 28, 1985 (Gong1985,909) (Gong11401 delivered on February 13, 1990) (Gong1990,633 delivered on April 24, 1990)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na2269 delivered on August 23, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3.

Examining the evidence produced by the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the non-party 1 who is a contractor for the construction work of this case is indicated as a contractor for the construction work of this case under the relationship between the title trustee on the ownership of the site of the building and the building permit, and in fact, the contract with the plaintiff was entered into in the name of the delegating to the above non-party 1, the actual owner of the building site and the owner of the building, and the plaintiff was well aware of the above circumstances and was related to the non-party 2 as the owner and the contractor for the construction work of this case. Therefore, in light of this, the decision of the court below that the contractor for the construction work of this case is the non-party 2, and there is no error of law by misconceptioning the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In general, a person who constructed a building in his own effort and materials acquires the ownership of the building in original condition: Provided, That in the case of a contract, if it is deemed that the contractor agreed to vest the ownership of the completed building in the name of the contractor by obtaining a construction permit under the name of the contractor and the contractor even if the contractor completed the building in his own effort and materials, the ownership of the building shall be reverted to the contractor in original condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1884, Apr. 24, 190).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that there was an agreement under the premise that the contractor acquires ownership of the building completed by the contractor, such as payment in kind of the unpaid amount of the building, or provisional registration of the ownership of the building at the time when the contractor fails to pay the construction price under the contract for the construction of the building in this case. According to this agreement, even if the plaintiff had the form of independent building under social norms at the time of the suspension and progress of the construction work by taking his effort and materials, the original ownership of the building can be viewed as the agreement to vest in the contractor regardless of its delivery or payment of the construction price, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the contractor had acquired the ownership of the building in this case, regardless of its original acquisition. In light of related evidence and the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misapprehending the interpretation of the contract for the construction or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the contract, and the plaintiff's assertion that ownership belongs to the contractor is not in violation of the agreement.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)