The legal nature of a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration based on termination of title trust with respect to real estate owned by a joint owner (=in indispensable co-litigation), and whether the party seeking cancellation of title trust can be seen differently in the case of one of the joint owners (negative)

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 271 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Da23238 Decided December 10, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 309) Supreme Court Decision 2010Da82639 Decided February 10, 201

D. The first instance court (Attorney Kim Shin-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Na19951, 19968 Decided September 26, 2014

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of termination of a title trust with respect to a real estate that has been registered for transfer of ownership due to the combination property is a lawsuit concerning the disposal of the combination property which is a combination property and constitutes an essential co-litigation that needs to be jointly confirmed for all the joint owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da23238, Dec. 10, 1996; 2010Da82639, Feb. 10, 201). It does not change solely on the ground that the party seeking the termination of the title trust is one of the joint owners.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff against only some of the joint owners, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate that the Plaintiff and the Defendants jointly own, was unlawful.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination appears to have been based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on litigation as to aggregate and joint property, internal relationship of title trust, claim for ownership transfer registration based on cancellation of title trust, essential co-litigation, right to a trial under the Constitution

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

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)