Where a part of the state-owned land is specified as the non-owned land, the purchaser's ownership type.

In a case where a part of a non-owned land is specified in the non-owned land and the location of the sub-section is not specified in the drawing, the buyer acquired the right to the specific part, and therefore, it cannot be said that the co-ownership is in co-ownership until the non-owned part is actually specified.

Article 262 of the Civil Act, Article 268 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (Attorney Kang Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff’s Intervenor)

Defendant-Appellant Lee Lee-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1119 delivered on December 28, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff's successor.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's fact-finding that the land of this case was owned by the state-owned land 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were divided into (number 1-1 omitted) through (number 1-5 omitted) and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was replaced by (number 1-1 omitted), (number 1-2 omitted) and (number 1-2 omitted) and that the non-party 3 was not recognized to have received 56 square meters from among (number 1-1 omitted), (number 1-2 omitted), and (number 1-2 omitted) the non-party 3 was not found to have received 56 square meters from the (number 38-2 omitted) and there was no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the rules of evidence-finding and there was no error in the court below's finding.

There is no reason to believe that the grounds for the theory of the lawsuit claiming the issue is ultimately attributable to the criticism of the lower court's whole right.

With respect to the second and fourth points

According to the records, in selling the land of this case by dividing it with No. 24-2 (Supplementary Map) of the judgment below, it cannot be said that the public official concerned was prepared to indicate the location of the sub-committee of the sub-section of this case, and in such a case, it cannot be said that there was no error of law since the drawings were prepared in detail by anyone and on the basis of what is the sub-section of the sub-section of this case. The purport of the judgment below is that the land of this case was specified in the drawing and it was understood that the specific part was divided after the drawing was divided. In this fact-finding, the court below did not recognize that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was not the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was divided.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below contains the violation of the rules of evidence and the lack of reason.

With respect to the third point:

In the case of this case, in a case where the land was specified and the location of the drawing was not designated, the buyer acquired the right to the specific part, so it cannot be deemed that the buyer acquired the right to the land by installments, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the part was in the co-ownership relationship until the specific part was actually divided. In this case, the court below did not recognize that the divided part (number 1-1 omitted) and (number 1-2 omitted) included 84 square meters of the site of the theory in the case of this case, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff acquired the co-ownership right to the above (number 2, 3 omitted) (number 2, 3 omitted).

Therefore, there is no argument suggesting that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of juristic acts or the legal principles on the validity of replotting disposition, on the contrary or based on facts that the court below did not recognize.

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 Young-ju (Presiding Justice)