(a) In a case where a housing site is created on a group of land and a house is sold in lots, and a part of the road is separately registered as a joint name of a housing owner, whether the ownership of share in the road portion is also included in the sale and purchase of housing and the site

(b) Where a partial alteration of a disposal document is disputed, the burden of proof shall be borne;

A. If a group of lands is purchased, and a house is constructed by constructing the above site, and part of the lands is divided, to be used as a road leading to a contribution from the said house, and the ownership transfer registration as to the said road was completed under the joint names of the owners of the said house, then the ownership ownership of the portion of the road leading to the contribution of the building shall, unless there are special circumstances, be included in the object of sale, be included in the sales.

B. In the event of dispute as to partial modification of a sales contract, even if the seller denies the formation of the contract, the court shall question whether the seller denies the existence of the document in his/her own signature and seal, and if the seller recognizes the authenticity of the stamp image, the authenticity is presumed to have been established. Thus, the seller shall prove whether there was any alteration of the document thereafter.

A. Article 563 of the Civil Procedure Act: Articles 261 and 328 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu31726 delivered on July 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1700). Supreme Court Decision 78Da1283 delivered on August 14, 1979 (Gong12155 delivered on July 10, 1979) 92Da12919 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192, 2368), Supreme Court Decision 93Da9422 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 794)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na36390 delivered on December 14, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant and 12 persons, including the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, etc. form a housing association on April 28, 1970, jointly purchased the site of Guro-gu Seoul ( Address omitted), divided it into 12 lots of land and one lot of land, and then completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the union member for the land partitioned into one lot of land. The above union members constructed the house above, and the above union members purchased the land of this case, which is the land of this case subdivided into a road, to make it impossible to sell it at will because the road of this case reaches a public road through the above 12 lots of land. After finding that the plaintiff purchased the share of the land of this case corresponding to the private road, the court below rejected all the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion, and found that the part of the land of this case was jointly owned by the association members at the time of dividing the land of this case to be jointly owned by the association members.

2. However, if a group of lands is purchased, and a house is constructed, and a part of the above lands is divided, and the ownership transfer of the road portion is registered under the joint names of the owners of the above houses was made thereafter, it is proper to view that the ownership of the portion of the road leading to the original contribution was included in the object of sale and purchase as a matter of course in the contract of sale and purchase unless there are special circumstances. Furthermore, the sale and purchase contract (Evidence A No. 5) of this case is recognized by the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, and even according to the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, it is recognized that the authenticity is established, but it is only a matter of whether the original entry of the sale and purchase contract was not made, or if it was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, and even if the defendant denies the ownership transfer of the above portion, the court may reject the defendant's signature or seal affixed to the original document without any reasonable reason to establish the document's authenticity, and thus it should be found that the defendant violated the evidence of this case.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)