(a) The case holding that it is difficult to view that the method of lighting is equipped only with the fact that the fences are installed around the land and the trees are planted and grow up by a garden;

(b) The ownership of trees planted on the site after a joint owner of the site has been granted a right to use his/her share from another joint owner, and then the ownership of trees is reverted;

(c) Principles for calculating the amount of damage caused by ownership loss of a specific object, and the case of its application;

(d) The case holding that construction works for the suspension of co-owned land constitute the act of management of co-owned property;

(e) Whether a majority of and a right holder of co-owned land is entitled to independently manage land without consultation with other co-owners (affirmative), and the relationship between the cost of management and the other co-owners and a third party;

(a) The case holding that it is difficult to view that a person has a method of masters solely on the fact that a fence is placed around the land and a tree is planted and grow up by a garden;

B. If a co-owner of a site sets up a right to use his/her share from another co-owner and then raises a fixed number on that site, the fixed number of co-owners shall be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the fixed number, regardless of the right to use the site, as it is planted by the right to use the site.

C. In the event that ownership of a specific object is destroyed, the principle of calculating the amount of damages at the time of tort shall be based on the exchange price at that time. However, the above principle shall not apply only to the case where there are special circumstances, such as whether the specific object is ordered to be removed through legitimate procedures between the source and the source, and the situation that the head of the competent Gu requests removal in consultation with the owner of the house, on the ground that the house is left undeveloped and there is a risk of collapse due to nearby construction works, and that there is a risk of collapse due to nearby construction works, and that there is an urban aesthetic sense, it is difficult to see

(d) The construction work of excavating a portion of co-owned land higher than that of a road and suspending the same height as that of a road shall be considered as the management work of co-owned land, increasing the utility value of such

E. A majority right holder of co-owned land may independently act with another co-owner without consultation, and the expenses for the management are obligated to bear according to the share ratio of co-owners. However, the above obligation to bear expenses for the management is determined in the internal relationship of co-owners, and the relationship with a third party is determined according to the pertinent legal relationship. Therefore, in the case of the execution of the suspended construction which becomes the management act by a majority right holder, if the construction cost is agreed to be settled by himself/herself, only the majority right holder shall bear the construction cost. However, if the construction cost was paid by himself/herself, only the other co-owners may claim the construction cost according to their share ratio.

(a) Article 186(b) of the Civil Act; Article 256(c) and Article 393(d)(e) of the Civil Act; Article 265 of the same Act;

C. Supreme Court Decision 68Da2233 decided Jan. 21, 1969 (No. 17) 80Da460 decided Aug. 19, 1980 (Gong1980, 13103)

Park Dong-dong District Court Decision 200Na1440

Attorney Park Jong-chul et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na32416 delivered on November 9, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In light of the records, the non-party Park Jong-sung held a title trust in the name of the plaintiff as to the co-ownership shares and the instant house among the land of this case, and even if not, the above Park Jong-sung's measure is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of lawsuit, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no argument.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above trees were owned by the plaintiff around the land in this case, since the trees planted on the land in this case were not publicly announced by a scenic method even if they were planted by the plaintiff, and thus, they were firmly affixed to the above Parksung, the ownership of the land in this case, as well as the land in this case. The court below acknowledged, based on macroficial evidence, that the plaintiff placed the above trees around the land in a fence around 1985 and laid down the above trees in this case, and opened the above trees in this case, and publicly announced that the above trees were owned by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the above trees were sufficient to recognize that they were owned by the plaintiff, the owner of the land in this case, from an objective perspective.

However, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was equipped with a scenic method only with the fact that the Plaintiff laid a fence around the land in this case and laid down the trees as a garden. However, as duly established by the lower court, the instant land is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff, and the Nonparty sold the instant house on the instant land to the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name when the Nonparty sold the instant house on the instant land to the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name, if the Plaintiff established the right to use his portion out of the instant land, the Plaintiff was planted by the right to use the land in this case and acquired the ownership of the fixed number regardless of the right to use the land.

The decision of the court below that the court below held that the person was equipped with the name of the plaintiff is justified in the conclusion that the number of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and thus, the argument is without merit.

(2) The court below is justified in taking measures that recognized the market price of the trees, etc. of this case as KRW 21,770,000 at the time of loss of the trees, etc. of this case by employing the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial and the evidence No. 7 (Written Estimate) prepared by the above witness, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

In the event of the loss of ownership of a specific object, the principle of calculating the amount of damages according to the exchange price at the time of the tort is to be based on the time of the tort. However, the above principle does not apply only to the case of special circumstances, such as whether the specific object is ordered to be removed through legitimate procedures or not.

However, according to the records, in the case of the instant house, it was not a name that could be removed by legitimate procedures between the non sources, but it was left alone, and the defendant company requested the removal from the head of Gangnam-gu in consultation with the owner of the instant house on the ground that the construction of the department store building could collapse the instant building due to the danger of the collapse of the building and may cause the urban aesthetic sense. This circumstance is not a special circumstance that could exclude the above principles in calculating the amount of damages caused by the removal of the instant house. Thus, the court below's measure that calculated the amount of damages caused by the removal of the instant house is just at the market price at the time of the removal of the house, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of damages or incomplete deliberation.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below suspended the excavation of the land of this case with the expenses equivalent to 17,212,834 won at the request of the non-party Park Jong-sung. The above request by the non-party constitutes the act of management of common property and thus the plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the above construction cost. As to the defendant's assertion that the above non-party's request constitutes the act of management of common property, it is reasonable to conclude that the non-party, who was a co-owner of the land of this case, has established a right to use the above non-party's co-ownership of the land of this case to continuously own the house of this case on the co-owned land of this case when the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future. The above non-party cannot be viewed as an act of management of the co-owned land of this case without the recovery of his right to use the above share again, and even if the non-party had been engaged in the suspension of the work by the non-party

According to the records, the above Park Jong-sung is the co-owner of the majority of the land of this case, and it can be known that he excavated the part higher than the road of this case from the land of this case and ordered the defendant company to perform the construction work at a height equivalent to the road of this case. The above construction work is to increase the utility value of the co-owned land of this case, and it shall be deemed the management act of co-owned property. Since the above Park Jong-sung is a majority of co-owned right holder of the co-owned land of this case, the above management act can be performed independently without consultation with the plaintiff. The management

However, since the above obligation to bear the management costs is to determine the burden in the internal relationship of co-owners, the relationship with the third party is determined according to the pertinent legal relationship. According to the records, the land excavation suspension corporation was implemented in accordance with the agreement with the above non-party and the defendant company, and according to the agreement, it can be known that the above non-party would settle the construction costs, so the person who is obligated to pay the construction costs directly to the defendant company is only the above non-party. However, if the above non-party paid the construction costs, it is reasonable to view that only the plaintiff can claim the construction costs according to the plaintiff'

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the act of management and cost of management of the jointly owned property, and rejected the defendant's above assertion, which is justified in its conclusion, that the non-party cannot perform the act of management of the co-owned property of this case and thus cannot be charged to the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

According to the records, in the legal brief dated August 8, 1989 of the defendant's legal representative stated on the third date for pleading of the court of first instance, the defendant's legal representative is expected to exercise the right to claim reimbursement of expenses in relation to the amount equivalent to KRW 61,572,015 equivalent to the plaintiff's share out of the excavation work costs of the land of this case according to the future progress of litigation in the future, only the defendant's legal representative is expected to exercise the right to claim reimbursement of expenses as a business manager, and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)