The case holding that there is no ground for quasi-deliberation to reverse the judgment on the validity of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land

Even if the protocol of partition and the results of cadastral survey under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land for Land owned by 12 persons, including the applicant for quasi-deliberation, have not become effective since the protocol of partition has not been finalized, so the court below's rejection of the application for provisional disposition on the ground that the applicant did not have the right to exclusively or exclusively occupy and use a specific part of the above land, among the reasons for the decision of quasi-deliberation, it is clear that the purport of rejection of the applicant's reappeal that the applicant's right to occupy and use the part of the land possessed by the applicant at the time of completion of the survey based on the current boundary of occupation is included in the content of the decision of quasi-deliberation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground

Article 431 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 422(1)9), Article 34 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land (Effective)

Applicant

Supreme Court Order 92Ma290 Decided June 19, 1992

The quasi-examination application is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the first ground for quasi-examination as asserted by the applicant

The summary of the reasons for the decision subject to quasi-deliberation is that even if the protocol of partition and the results of cadastral survey for each lot number under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land has been prepared for the land of this case owned by 12 persons including the applicant, since the protocol of partition has not been finalized, the court below's rejection of the application for provisional disposition on the ground that the applicant has no right to exclusively and exclusively occupy and use the dispute portion of the land of this case, and that the decision subject to quasi-examination contains the purport of rejecting the applicant's ground for reappeal that the applicant's ground for reappeal that the right to occupy and use the dispute portion of the land of this case occupied by the applicant upon completion of the investigation and survey based on the current boundary under Articles 22 (1) and 23 (1) of the above Act, it is clear that the decision subject to quasi-examination contains the purport of rejecting the applicant's ground for reappeal that the right to use the land of this case

2. Determination on the second ground for the same quasi-examination

The Busan District Court Decision 90Na1100 delivered on April 19, 1991, which is a final and conclusive judgment cited by the theory of the lawsuit, merely quoted that the applicant who is a co-owner of the land of this case, claims the transfer of the land in the dispute as an act of preserving the jointly owned property, and it is clear that the applicant does not have the exclusive and exclusive right to use the land in the dispute, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the decision subject to quasi-examination has a ground for quasi-examination inconsistent with the above final and conclusive judgment.

3. Therefore, the applicant's application for quasi-examination of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)