Supreme Court: Transferred Building, Co-Builder Has No Obligation to Consent to 'Name Change'

Court: "Other Co-owners Naturally Do Not Need to Consent to Name Change"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if some co-owners of a building agree to transfer their shared ownership shares to others, the remaining co-owners are not automatically obligated to consent to the change of the building owner’s name unless there is a legal or contractual basis.

The Supreme Court’s 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) on the 31st upheld the lower court’s ruling that dismissed the appeal filed by A Church against Mr. B in a lawsuit demanding the execution of the building owner name change procedure.

A Church entered into a contract to acquire shares of a six-story building located in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul. Although the building was completed, it remained unregistered due to violations of the Building Act, such as infringement of sunlight rights. After acquiring shares of the building, A Church filed a lawsuit against Mr. B, one of the existing co-owners, requesting to change the building owner’s name to theirs.

The first trial court accepted A Church’s claim, stating, "A Church acquired shared ownership of the building from other co-owners," and "Mr. B is obligated to consent to A Church’s request for the change of the building owner’s name."

However, the appellate court ruled in favor of Mr. B, stating, "Even if shares were agreed to be transferred from co-owners, it cannot be assumed that other co-owners are automatically obligated to consent to the change of the building owner’s name."

The Supreme Court also held that Mr. B is not obligated to consent to the change of the building owner’s name. Unless there is a legal or contractual basis, the remaining co-owners are not obligated to consent to the change of the building owner’s name.

Previously, the Supreme Court had held that to change the name of co-owners, consent must be obtained from “all building owners before the change,” and individual lawsuits could be filed against each owner.

The court stated that this precedent does not imply a legal obligation for other co-owners to consent to the name change, nor does it mean they must naturally consent.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.