A. Whether if a co-ownership registration has been made on the whole parcel through a mutual title trust, if the registration of co-ownership transfer has been made, the right on the whole parcel shall be valid (affirmative)

B. Whether an acquirer acquires the ownership of trust property lawfully and the title trust relationship terminates where the real estate held in title trust was disposed of to a third party (affirmative with qualification)

A. Where a co-ownership registration has been made with respect to the entire parcel as part of the trustee’s registration under a mutual title trust, if a legitimate co-ownership relation is established with respect to the entire parcel in an external relationship, and the registration of transfer of the co-ownership can be transferred to the whole parcel.

B. In the case of a title trust of real estate, since the ownership externally reverts to the trustee, when the trustee disposes of the entrusted real estate to a third party, the third acquisitor shall acquire the ownership of the trust property lawfully and the title trust relationship shall be extinguished, unless there exist any grounds such as invalidation or cancellation of the disposal act.

A.B. Article 186 of the Civil Code / [title trust] Article 262 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da741 delivered on June 26, 1979 (Gong1979, 12043) B. Supreme Court Decision 87Da424 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong1988, 497) decided November 13, 1990 (Gong1991, 85) 91Da6221 delivered on April 23, 191 (Gong191, 1481)

Plaintiff (Withdrawal)

Intervenor succeeding

Defendant (Withdrawal)

Intervenor to Acceptance

Intervenor joining the Intervenor

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na57535 delivered on March 27, 1992

The judgment below is reversed;

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the alteration of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it alters the foundation of the claim, on the premise that the lawsuit in this case was jointly owned by Daejeon Jung-gu ( Address 1 omitted) 49.1 (hereinafter only referred to as the "land in this case") and the ( Address 2 omitted) 102.1 (hereinafter referred to as address 2 omitted) adjacent thereto (hereinafter referred to as the " Address 2 omitted) and the plaintiff and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "resident 2 omitted) are owned by common property, not a purely meaningful claim for partition of co-owned property, but a lawsuit seeking partition between the plaintiff and the defendant (each of them), on the premise that each part of the land in this case was owned by each of the original parties in a mutual title trust relationship with each other in the registration, and thus, it did not properly provide the purport of the claim, and thus, it did not have any alteration in the plaintiff's claim for the execution of the ownership transfer registration procedure as stated in its reasoning.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts based on the evidence, and found that the defendant was originally owned by the Republic of Korea ( Address 3 omitted) to be designated as a planned land substitution for approximately 815 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), and sold all the land of this case and ( Address 2 omitted) to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (Death January 5, 1975), and then transferred 5.48 percent of the actual purchase area of the previous land to the non-party 2, the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 transferred only 102 percent of the remaining 815 shares to the non-party 10.48 percent of the total purchase area of the land of this case to the non-party 2 who acquired the ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (Status 2 omitted)'s co-ownership share transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who acquired the ownership transfer registration under the non-party 2's share.

However, in a case where a co-ownership registration has been made on the whole parcel as a registration of a trustee under a mutual title trust, if a legitimate co-ownership relationship is established on the whole parcel of land, and the co-ownership registration can be transferred to all valid on the whole parcel of land (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da741 delivered on June 26, 1979). In a case where a title trust is held on a real estate, since the ownership externally belongs to the trustee, in a case where a trustee disposes of the entrusted real estate to a third party, the third acquisitor acquires the ownership of the trust property, and the title trust relationship will be extinguished, unless there is any reason such as invalidation or revocation of the disposal act

Therefore, even though the registration of co-ownership transfer in the decision made in the name of the defendant and the above non-party 2, and the co-ownership transfer in the decision made in the name of the plaintiff, which was completed with respect to the land of this case, had a mutual title trust relationship, in external relations, a legitimate co-ownership relationship was established according to each co-ownership in the decision as to the entire land of this case, and the defendant, who is the registered titleholder, owned the co-ownership in the decision as to the whole land of this case. As determined by the court below, unless there are other circumstances, if the acquiring intervenor acquired the co-ownership in the decision made in the name as to the land of this case from the defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the acquiring intervenor legally acquired the co-ownership ownership in the

Nevertheless, despite recognizing facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that a mutual title trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor who acquired the instant land from the Plaintiff as a result of the transfer of co-ownership shares in the judgment of the Defendant’s name to the succeeding intervenor was succeeded to the instant land, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)