The case holding that a financial investor who is a registered titleholder shall be liable for the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership to a person sold in lots from the building company for a row house constructed under a partnership business agreement between a financial investor and a housing building company

A shall make an investment in funds to collect an amount calculated by adding a certain amount to the investment money after the sale in a house, and Eul, a constructor, concluded a partnership business agreement with the construction and sale in a row house under his/her responsibility, and made a registration of transfer of ownership and a registration of preservation of ownership in the name of A with respect to the site and the tenement house to be constructed on the ground to guarantee the recovery of the investment money, on the ground that there is any circumstance in which the investment money has not been settled between B and B, the transfer of ownership shall not be refused for those who have the right to sell in a house in a legitimate manner to purchase in lots from

Articles 703 and 712 of the Civil Act

Attorney Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Seo-won et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Da27810 delivered on November 2, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 2 purchased the above house from the non-party 1's beneficiary on April 15, 1982 for the purpose of building the apartment house and selling it in lots. The above defendant 40,000 won shall be invested between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the remaining construction funds shall be sold in lots, and the remaining construction funds shall be paid to the above defendant 1,00,000 won shall be paid to the above defendant 50,000 won in total to the principal of the above investment until the end of September of the same year, and the above 1,00,000 won shall be paid to the above plaintiff 50,000 won in this case's house and the above 60,000 won shall be the ownership transfer registration for the above house and the above 60,000 won shall be the ownership transfer registration for the above house to be newly constructed on the above house and its ground, and the above 1,000,0,00,00 won among the above apartment house.

The judgment of the court below is proper, and even if the owner of the apartment house in this case was left in his name in order to secure the recovery of the investment amount, if the building of the apartment house in this case and all of the affairs related to the sale of the apartment house in this case were to be performed under the business contract between the above defendant and the non-party river, and the above defendant is entrusted with the construction of the apartment house in this case as well as all of the affairs related to the sale of the apartment house in this case under the business contract between the above defendant and the non-party river, even if there are circumstances where the investment amount has not been settled between the above river of the non-party river, the transfer of ownership shall not be refused

In addition, even though there was a different judgment from this case in a judgment cited by the theory of lawsuit, the binding force of the judgment that differs from the parties cannot be affected by this case. Ultimately, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles, such as the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, such as the theory of lawsuit, or

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed 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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)