(b) Where one co-owner occupies all co-owned land, the nature of the possession within the limit of the share ratio of other co-owners (=the possession of the other co-owners)

B. Even if one co-owner occupies all of the co-owners, the co-owned land shall be deemed to be the possession of another co-owner within the limit of the share ratio of the other co-owners in light of the nature of the source of title

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

On the first ground for appeal

1. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

In addition, as recognized by the court below, if the position-determination drawing of the government-regulatory authority on the land of this case is not prepared according to the measurement or accurate criteria, but based on the position of each occupant in large scale, and if the total number of the replotting differs from the total number of the replotting and the actual average number of the drawings, the administrative disposition of this location determination is not clear or uncertain to the extent that the content of the act is not recognizable, and if so, the court below's determination that the administrative disposition of this location determination is invalid because it is not clear or uncertain to the extent that the content of the act is not recognizable, and if so, there are no specific land location, area, etc., the sectional owner of the land of this case before replotting does not acquire only the co-ownership right on the land of this case and there is no exclusive use right as the sole owner due to the determination of replotting, and there is no error in the misapprehension of

In such a case, the issue is that the scope of rights should be determined by avoiding a new administrative disposition. However, unless there is a new administrative disposition, it is inevitable to regard it as a sharing relationship.

2. Even if several persons own a part or whole of the original parcel of land by dividing it into a specific part, that person is entitled to co-ownership of the land substituted by the proportion corresponding to the previous one, barring any special circumstance, if the land was jointly substituted by one piece of land. Thus, the sole ownership relationship with respect to the previous part of land is resolved, and only the co-ownership right to the land substituted by the land after the land substitution can be asserted. Since a person who shares one parcel of land cannot use a part of the land exclusively after the land was jointly substituted, the owner of the specific part of the previous land can only claim the co-ownership right to the land after the land was jointly substituted, and it cannot be exclusively occupied and used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da5983, May 28, 1991; 8Da3855, Sept. 24, 199).

3. However, as in the instant case, in a case where 15 persons, including Defendant 1, purchase two parcels of land prior to the land substitution from the government authorities by specifying the location of the land in question, complete only the share transfer registration corresponding to the number of the land to be purchased for convenience, and the location and size of the land to be purchased vary due to the land substitution after the date, etc., the government authorities made a special agreement to unilaterally determine the location and size of the land by the purchaser. However, as long as the contents of the designation cannot be determined by the purchaser’s land location and size as it is unclear or uncertain, even if the purchaser purchases some parcels of the previous land after the land substitution, it cannot be said that the purchaser still divided ownership of the land in this case after the land substitution, and the purchaser cannot be said to have shared the land in this case according to the ratio corresponding to the previous land, and the same applies even if there was no new location of the government authorities under the special agreement above, it cannot be said that the purchaser's exclusive ownership of the previous land can not be asserted as part of the land.

Therefore, there is no reason to dispute from the opposite position.

On the second ground for appeal

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows: (a) under a special agreement with the purchaser to reduce the ordinary number of the previous land due to replotting, the government agency prepared a location-fixing map to specify the location and reputation of the land to be owned by each purchaser; (b) however, the drawing was not prepared by the measurement and other accurate criteria; (c) the total horizontal number as corrected due to replotting is different from the total horizontal number as corrected by the government agency's location and the total horizontal number as actually substituted is different from that of the drawing; (d) the above drawing is not different from the actual horizontal number as determined by the drawing; and (e) according to the entry in the copy of the copy of the register No. 1 (the copy of the register of register), the plaintiff's ownership of 17.7/197 of the previous land before replotting was reduced by the normal number as determined by the replotting; and (e) it is clear that the Plaintiff's share was owned by 13.156/196 of the Plaintiff's share; and (e) it can be determined by the court below.7/19/16/16/1.6/14 of the Plaintiff's share.

In addition, as seen earlier, co-owners who owned the previous land before the land substitution confirmation can only claim the co-ownership right for the land substitution. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff purchased part of the previous land from the purchaser of the previous land, it is natural that he can claim his co-ownership right against the Defendants who occupied the land exclusively within the limit of his co-ownership, even if they purchased part of the land from the purchaser of the previous land. The discussion is without merit.

On the third ground for appeal

Unless there exist any special circumstances, co-owner's possession of all co-owned land shall not be deemed to be the possession of another co-owner within the limit of the share ratio of other co-owners in light of the nature of the source of land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2825, Nov. 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1418, 1419, Dec. 13, 198). Although the Defendants, even if the previous land was divided ownership, they merely acquire co-ownership at the rate corresponding to the previous land after the land was substituted. Thus, even if the Defendants occupied the land on the land, the possession of the land cannot be deemed to be the possession of another co-owner in view of the nature of the source of land, and the fact alone cannot be deemed to have expressed the intent of the other co-owners to own it on the land. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of the defense of the statute of limitations acquisition by the Defendants.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.