[1] In a case where land in the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation, where a mutual title trust registration is made, whether the former mutual title trust relation is terminated by a land substitution disposition (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that an implied agreement was reached between the owners of the previous land to maintain a mutual title trust relationship on the ground that the previous land owner shall own each specific part of the substituted land even after the replotting disposition, in a case where the land in the sectionally owned co-ownership relation was reduced in size and the location and topography of the land were remarkably different from those of the previous land

[1] In a case where land in the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation, which is registered as a mutual title trust, has been substituted, barring any special circumstance that the co-owners agreed to own some of the substituted land and maintain a mutual title trust relation, the previous mutual title trust relation is terminated by a disposition of replotting, and the previous owners acquire co-ownership share in the land at the rate corresponding to the previous land.

[2] The case holding that in a case where a piece of land in a sectionally owned co-ownership relation is reduced in size, and the location and topography of which are considerably different from those of the previous owners were sub-Replottingd into three lots of land, it cannot be deemed that an implied agreement was reached between the previous owners to maintain a mutual title trust relationship by deciding to own part of the substitute land even after a replotting disposition, on the sole basis of the fact that the land in a sectionally owned co-ownership relation was designated as a reserved land for replotting and then the non-land substitution disposition for the said land became final and conclusive, or that some of the previous owners were in fact occupying it after specifying and selling part of the substitute land

[1] Articles 103 [title trust] and 262 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act / [2] Articles 103 [title trust] and 262 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da28406, 28413 decided Oct. 25, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 309), Supreme Court Decision 93Da52150 decided Nov. 18, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 48), Supreme Court Decision 95Da7437 decided Jul. 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2803), Supreme Court Decision 96Da2880 decided Jul. 12, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2472)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na50812 delivered on January 14, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

A. The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows.

The name of the administrative district was changed in sequence to the 1,407 square meters in order, which was originally owned by the non-party 1 (non-party 1) in Yeongdeungpo-gu (the name of the administrative district was changed to the Dong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, the Dong-gu, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, and the Dong-dong, the Dongjak-gu) 204-3 1,407 square meters (hereinafter the previous land was referred to as "the previous land") was designated as the land improvement district pursuant to subparagraph 22 of the notification of the Japanese General Do governor on January 29, 1939, and the implementation order of the project on March 16, 193 and the land readjustment project was implemented on January 15, 1940; on February 9, 1942, 1942, the land substitution project was omitted to 372 square meters in size and 164 square meters in size as 163 square meters in total (3.64 square meters in size);

On the other hand, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 specified each location of the previous land from Nonparty 1, and the above Nonparty 2 were cultivated by cultivating 46.7 square meters, and on June 21, 1949, the Farmland Reform Act was enforced on 421 square meters. At the same time, each specific part was purchased from the Defendant as a non-self-owned farmland, and was distributed to the above persons who possessed it. Accordingly, the above Nonparty 2 completed the repayment on December 9, 1957, and the above Nonparty 3 completed the repayment on October 20, 1958. However, in relation to the registration of the transfer of ownership, the above non-party 2 completed the procedure for the transfer of ownership by means of a share transfer with the area allocated to each of the above land as a molecule on the registry as at the time of the registration of the transfer of ownership, and the above non-party 3 completed the procedure for the transfer of ownership as at the time of the above land as at the time of the transfer of ownership.

With respect to the portion of 938.96/1,407 corresponding to the remaining land, such as a site, road, sewage hole, etc. among the previous land, a registration has been made in the name of the defendant last.

After that, the above part of each of the lands owned by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, as indicated in the co-ownership transfer system table in the judgment below, sold each of the above lands to Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 6, respectively. On September 2, 1966, each of the above lands was sold before and after the purchase of electric power and the disposition of replotting became final and conclusive, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 10 acquired each of the specific lands, but the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was completed under their joint names.

However, as the previous land owned by the above non-party 7, the non-party 8, the non-party 9, the non-party 10, and the defendant identified their respective locations was disposed of as non-land separate from each independent land corresponding to sectional ownership relation with the total size reduced, the part owned and occupied by the above non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 93 among the previous land was determined to be approximately 178.8 (round 4 omitted) and the part owned and occupied by the above non-party 10 and the defendant was owned and possessed by the above non-party 374.4 (round 2 omitted) and the non-party 374.2 (round 374, the division number as the land scheduled for replotting) and the non-party 323.2 (round 168,324, the division number as the land scheduled for replotting) respectively (round 3, 168).

After that, the defendant specified the above ( Address 2 omitted) large 374.4 square meters (1237.7 square meters) and sold the above ( Address 3 omitted) land to the above non-party 10 and the non-party 13 as indicated in the above system list, and sold the land to the non-party 12 and the non-party 13 as well. With respect to the portion of 938.96 square meters in the defendant's name, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer was completed by means of a share transfer with the land registration of the previous land as to the part that he purchased under the above non-party's name as to the specific part of the land. Since each of the above land was transferred in succession, the plaintiff purchased each part of the above non-party 10 on March 31, 1978, and on October 21, 1992, each part of the above land owned by the non-party 11 on December 26, 1974.

B. The lower court determined as follows on the premise of the foregoing factual relations.

The previous land prior to the confirmation of replotting was in the co-ownership relationship between the above non-party 7, the non-party 8, the non-party 9, the non-party 10, and the defendant's sectionally owned co-ownership on the registry at the time of the determination of replotting. In light of the fact that the previous land owned by the non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 93 were designated as the land substitution lot for the previous land, which corresponds to the total share of the above non-party 162, such as the land number 162 was designated as the land substitution lot for the land owned by the non-party 7, the non-party 8, the non-party 9, the non-party 9, and the non-party 93, and then the non-party and the defendant possessed and used each specific part of the land after replotting over 20 years after the disposition of replotting was confirmed, it is reasonable to view that there was an implied agreement between the co-party on the registry to maintain the mutual title trust relationship before the substitution.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

In a case where the land in the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation, which is registered for the mutual title trust, has been substituted, the mutual title trust relation between the co-owners is terminated by a disposition of replotting and the previous owners acquire co-ownership share in the land at the rate corresponding to the previous land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da28406, Oct. 25, 1994; 93Da52150, Nov. 18, 1994; 96Da2880, Jul. 12, 1996).

However, according to the records, although the previous land was originally discussed, but its size was reduced from 1,407 to 876.4, and its location and topography was remarkably different from that of three lots of land. In light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the previous land owned by Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 10 and the Defendant, whose location were each located at the time of the instant land substitution disposition, was non-land substitution as separate land corresponding to each of their sectional ownership at the time of the instant land substitution disposition.

According to the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there was an implied agreement between the owners of previous land to maintain a mutual title trust relationship by specifying some of the substituted land after a replotting disposition was taken, as indicated in the above system chart, after the land was designated as a reserved land for replotting at around 162 parcel number of the land as indicated in the land size (176.24 square meters) consistent with the size owned and occupied by Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, and Nonparty 93 among the previous land, and after the non-land substitution disposition became final and conclusive at approximately 178.8 square meters, the above land was actually occupied by Nonparty 7, etc., or the Defendant sold as indicated in the above system chart by specifying part of the above ( Address 5 omitted) and ( Address 3 omitted) land.

In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 95Da7437 delivered on July 14, 1995, cited by the court below, divided the land in the sectional co-ownership relationship into several parcels on the land cadastre depending on the shape of each specific occupation of the possessor, and then divided the land into the same number by taking a non-land substitution after hearing the opinions of the possessor. Accordingly, in the case where each possessor occupies each specific parcel of land after the replotting corresponding to the portion of the land possessed by each owner prior to the replotting, it is reasonable to view that the possessor has made an explicit or implied agreement to maintain the share transfer registration of each parcel of land after the replotting as a mutual title trust relationship.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on sectionally owned co-ownership relation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the court below determined that there was an implied agreement between the owners of the previous land to maintain a mutual title trust relation by deciding to own part of the substitute land even after the disposition of replotting in this case was issued.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)