B. Whether each sectional owner can be deemed as a succession to the status of a title trustee in the event that a joint registration has been made for a mutual title trust relationship by sectional ownership of a specific part

B. If a co-ownership registration has been completed in a mutual title trust relationship with each other under sectional ownership, it is reasonable to deem that each sectional owner succeeds to the status of the trustee, barring any special circumstance.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

(1) The facts duly established by the lower court in this case are as follows.

On June 8, 1984, the Plaintiff: (a) sold 100 square meters to Nonparty 1; (b) 2,952 square meters prior to its ownership partition; (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty 2; (d) 330 percent of the previous land; and (e) sold 80 square meters adjacent to the above part to Nonparty 1 on June 20, 1985; (e) completed the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty 2; (e) 2,64.47 meters prior to its sale on the previous land; (e) 6.7 meters prior to its sale on the above land; (e.g., 2, 40 square meters prior to its sale on the above land; and (e) the Plaintiff sold 2,952 square meters adjacent to the above part on the previous land to Nonparty 2; and (e) the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty 2, 2952 meters prior to its sale on the same land.

(2) As the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the part of the land purchased by three parties, including the above Defendant, is included within 2,462 square meters prior to the sale to the Korea Land Development Corporation ( Address 2 omitted) and three parties, including the above Defendant, etc., have no right to the land of this case. Thus, the title trust relationship is terminated due to the division of the previous land, and the ownership transfer registration of the above Defendant, etc., which was transferred to the above Defendant, etc., is invalid because it is not consistent with the substantive relationship. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above shares completed by the above Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 to the Defendant is invalid.

However, in a case where ownership of each specific part of the land has been divided and registered as a mutual title trust, if the land is divided, the mutual title trust relationship remains as it remains, since the co-ownership registration of each divided land is transcribed, and the portion of sectional ownership of three parties, including the defendant, etc., except the plaintiff, is included in the divided land, and the mutual title trust relationship with respect to the land has ceased due to the transfer of the land to Korea Land Development Corporation, even though the mutual title trust relationship with respect to the land has ceased to exist as a matter

In the above purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's primary claim as to the registration of invalidity of cause that does not coincide with the substantive relationship. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory, and the precedents cited by theory are not proper precedents in this case, and therefore, it is not reasonable in this case.

(3) Next, even if the transfer registration of ownership in the above three persons including the above defendant as to the land of this case is valid, the plaintiff terminated the above title trust and requested the defendant to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership based on the purport of the claim and the reason for claim made on October 23, 1990 on the ground that the transfer registration of ownership in the above three persons including the above defendant as to the land of this case was registered under title trust from the plaintiff. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's transfer registration as to the above shares in this case, regardless of the ownership transfer registration, since the registration completed in the defendant's future with respect to 31/2,952 out of the land of this case is the registration registered under title trust from the plaintiff as seen earlier, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership as to the above shares in the above case. However, since the shares in the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were first registered in the above 2,952 and the ownership in the above 2,954.7.

However, it is reasonable to view that each sectional owner succeeds to the position of the trustee, unless there are special circumstances, in the event that a joint registration has been made in the mutual title trust relationship with each other by dividing the specific parts as above.

Unlike the above, the court below determined that the title trust relationship with the above parties 1 and 2 was terminated by the transfer of shares in the land of this case to the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the transfer of shares in a mutually nominal co-owned land, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for discussing this point. Thus, the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim among the judgment below cannot be maintained.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3 by the defendant's attorney.

Examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that recognized that the plaintiff sold a specific 100 square meters of 2,952 square meters prior to the division to the defendant prior to the Chuncheon City ( Address 1 omitted), and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

In addition, as long as the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant remains, the execution procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant against the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have become impossible to perform the procedure only with the grounds alleged in the lawsuit. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the impossibility of performance as alleged

3. Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the conjunctive claim shall be reversed and remanded, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)