The provision that part of the land of one parcel is divided to be included in the site of the ground building and that it is sold to others

It is extremely rare in light of the empirical rule that a person who sells a part of a parcel of land by dividing it into a parcel of land to include a part of the site of a building remaining 2 years after the date of the new construction on the parcel of land.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 85Na611 delivered on December 12, 1985

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the plaintiff and the non-party 1 with respect to the (No. 1 omitted) 248 square meters in Ulsan City, Ulsan-si, and that the defendant owned one house at 5.1 square meters in the land of this case and possessed 8.3 square meters in the above building site, including the above building site. The land of this case is originally divided into the (No. 2 omitted) 141 square meters in the (No. 141 square meters), and the defendant who was the owner of the land of this case, sold only the side part of the above building constructed at the time of the division to the non-party 2 on the boundary of the wall and fence, and since the above part of the land of this case was owned by the defendant and still owned by the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, the non-party 2's testimony and the non-party 2's testimony to the non-party 1 in order, which correspond to the plaintiff 2's testimony and the non-party 3.

However, according to the above evidence No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 3 (No. 2 omitted) without dispute over each establishment, the defendant newly constructed the above building on the ground around July 1970 and completed a registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the above land by dividing the above land into two parcels on December 28, 1972. The defendant's allegation that the above part of the land should be included in the boundary line of the non-party No. 2 at the time of the above land's new construction on the land and the boundary line of the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 at the time of the above land's purchase and sale without the consent of the court below that the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 2 should be included in the non-party No. 4's boundary line at the time of the above land's new construction on the land, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above part of the above land's cadastral map was clearly divided into the boundary of the wall No. 1 and its answer. 2.

Nevertheless, with respect to the fact that the court below's aforementioned 141 square meters were sold in installments by the defendant to the other party, and there was a son special circumstance that can sell part of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building building of the building building of the building site of the building site of the building site of the building site of the above 2-2 and the above 2-2-3 of evidence No. of the above 2-2 without any scambingsives, and determined that the defendant's testimony of the non-party 6 of the court of first instance alone is not proved otherwise, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby making a judgment on the value of evidence. This constitutes a ground for reversal under

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)