Ownership in the case where the old building which is the object of security for transfer is destroyed and the new building is constructed and is the object of security.

Where a building which has been an object of transfer for security is demolished by an agreement with the secured party and a new building is constructed on the land and is to be provided as security, the ownership of the new building shall belong to the secured party in accordance with the construction process.

Article 187 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 75Na1113 delivered on June 10, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant et al., Counsel for the defendant et al.'s appeal is examined.

1. The lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant: (a) destroyed a wooden building, which is an old building on the 56th square meters of Daegu-si ( Address omitted); and (b) constructed a building on a separate site, thereby acquiring the ownership of the building in its original condition.

However, in full view of the evidence admitted by the court below and the purport of the pleading in the record, in purchasing the above building site and the old building, the defendant, in order to borrow part of the purchase price (600,000 won and 230,000 won) from the non-party and secure his debt, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above building site and the old building under the name of the non-party, and again, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above building site and the old building under an agreement with the non-party, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the building on the old building site under the name of the non-party as a security for

2. However, in the case where the previous building is intended to be constructed by an agreement with the secured party and the building is to be provided as a security, and the previous building is to be demolished in order to construct the building, unless there are special circumstances, the building to be newly constructed in accordance with the agreement shall be considered as the object of security instead of the previous building. A security right to the previous building to be demolished shall be extinguished for the construction of the new building. At the same time, the new building to be constructed in accordance with the new agreement shall be deemed to be the object of security (the process where the object of security is replaced by the object of the new building) and the result of the construction process (the outside) shall be deemed to belong to the secured party in order of ownership for the purpose of security. Thus, if the building has been constructed for the purpose of security at the same time as the completion of the construction and the formation of the building is completed for the purpose of security, the ownership of the new building shall be deemed to belong to the secured party (the ownership of the new building shall be deemed to belong to the third party).

3. If so, in this case, in order to remove the old building, which was the object of the previous security with Defendant 1 and the above Nonparty, and provide the new building as security, the purport of the security contract, which requires the registration of ownership in the name of the above Nonparty, is according to the construction process of the building to be newly constructed (in an external relationship, its ownership is the owner of the building (in the external relationship), and it is not possible to regard that it is the owner of the building as the object of security to the above Nonparty who was the construction permit holder, and it is not possible to regard that it is the owner of the building as the object of security. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it is difficult to understand that the defendant's original acquisition of the building by his own own fund, on the ground that it was the owner of the building.

The argument that points out the objection is included is reasonable.

Therefore, the remaining grounds of appeal are with merit, and therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court in accordance with Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)