B. The nature of the duty to return unjust enrichment in relation to the co-owned property held by the co-owner

2. In case where co-owners gain profits without any legal cause in relation to the article jointly owned and thereby have sustained damages to a third party, the obligation to redeem the benefits shall be regarded as an indivisible obligation.

According to the original judgment, the lower court determined that the forest at issue in this case was originally owned by Nonparty 1, and that the Defendant’s deceased Nonparty 1’s deceased on May 24, 1920 and the Defendant’s deceased Nonparty 2 succeeded to the same forest land as the deceased on January 26, 1925 without Nonparty 1’s death, and that the same forest was reverted to the rights of Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, and again, Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 succeeded to the rights of Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 2 on the ground that the ownership and management of the grave at issue were exclusively attached to the deceased’s deceased heir, and thus, Nonparty 2 et al. al. and Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4’s deceased on January 26, 1925 without the deceased Nonparty 1’s death. Accordingly, the lower court did not err by misapprehending 1 and Nonparty 4’s property succession to the forest land to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s property right.

However, according to the reasoning of the court below, even though the parental authority to manage and own a grave under the above circumstances at the time of the death of the deceased non-party 2, who died in January 26, 1925 without the death of the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 3 and the non-party 4's punishment, who were each of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2's sculptures, can be seen by the court below's instruction. However, even if the deceased non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 2, has the parental authority to manage and own the grave under the above circumstances at the time of the death of the deceased non-party 2, even if the deceased non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 2, the car model was inherited by the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 4's death without the death of the deceased non-party 2, the car model was inherited by the deceased non-party 3 and the right to safeguard the grave (refer).

Therefore, if the deceased non-party 2 died and the deceased non-party 2 becomes extinct due to the absence of the latter, it shall be deemed that the deceased non-party 3, who was the part of the deceased non-party 1, succeeds to the protection and management of the graves installed in the forest in question, as well as the ownership and the right of access to the graves installed in the forest in question. However, after the death of the non-party 2, in violation of the above purport, the court below did not succeed to the above plaintiff 1's lighting and the ownership of the graves after the death of the deceased non-party 2, but only the ownership of the forest in question belongs to his father's right, and thus, the contract for the protection of the graves in question between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 1 cannot be deemed to have been automatically extinguished, and it shall be considered that there is a reason to find any ground for objection to this point (However, it is a matter to be different).

As to ground of appeal No. 2:

Even if it is evident by Article 267 of the Civil Act that a co-owner would acquire shares if he renounces his shares, the other co-owner cannot acquire shares again from another co-owner thereafter. In this case, even if he waives his shares in the forest at issue of Plaintiff 2 by means of a part of the litigation procedure pending between the defendant and the defendant at the time of waiver of his share in the forest in question, if he newly acquired and registered his share in the part abandoned to Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4 after the completion of the lawsuit, then the right to the forest in question of the same plaintiffs is legitimate, and it cannot be said that the above effect is affected by res judicata effect of the judgment in the above case.

Therefore, it is not clear that there is no question about the effect of the plaintiff's right of share acquired later due to the renunciation of the above.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the original judgment, the lower court determined that on the forest land of this case, the Defendant’s amounting to KRW 6,627,000 at the market price of the planting-restricted trees belongs to the Plaintiffs, who are forest co-owners, according to the so-called agreement, and that the Plaintiffs paid the value thereof to the Defendant as a performance of the obligation to return unjust enrichment, and that the payment limit was the obligation to divide according

However, in the case where co-owners gain profits without any legal ground in the legal relations as to the article jointly owned and thereby inflict damages on a third party, it is reasonable to view that the obligation to redeem the profit is an indivisible obligation, unlike the exercise of co-ownership right (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da630, Aug. 22, 1978). Thus, it is unlawful to order the payment of the share equivalent to the market price of the item in the item in accordance with the ratio of shares of the plaintiffs, as stated above, in the judgment of the original court (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da630

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the Defendant’s appeal is with merit, and therefore, the part against the Defendant in the original judgment is reversed, and it is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yang Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)