(a) The legal relationship in case where the land in the so-called sectional ownership relationship with which the mutual title trust is registered has been substituted;

(b) The case holding that there was an agreement among co-owners to maintain a mutual title trust relationship after the disposition of replotting for the land in the partitioned co-ownership relationship;

A. In a case where the land in the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation, where a mutual title trust registration is completed, barring any special circumstance, the mutual title trust relation between the previous owners is merely a pure co-ownership share in relation to the replotting, which is terminated by a land substitution disposition, and the previous owners acquire a pure co-ownership share in relation to the replotting at the rate corresponding to the previous land, even though the land has been substituted by the land substitution in the form of replotting and its location and topography are maintained without changing the land location and topography, barring any special circumstance. However, even after the land substitution, if there are special circumstances, such as where co-owners own each part of the land, and are deemed to have a mutual title trust relation as to that part of the land, or where co-owners have explicitly maintained,

(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the occupant of a land readjustment project has made an explicit or implied agreement to maintain a mutual title trust relation with each land after replotting, in case where the land in the partitioned co-ownership relation was partitioned into several parcels of land on the land surface, depending on the shape of each specific part of possession by the occupant, and again divided the land into the same number by non-land substitution for each part of possession, which is not a land substitution, after hearing the opinions of the occupant, and accordingly, the possessor has occupied each specific parcel of land corresponding to the portion possessed by each person before replotting.

Article 103 of the Civil Act / [title trust] and Article 262 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Division and Rearrangement Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Da5983 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1755) 91Nu11018 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1892) 94Da6840 delivered on September 9, 1994

Plaintiff 1 and one other Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Telecommunication Corporation (Attorney Choi Han-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na26009 delivered on December 8, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Where land in the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relation where a mutual title trust is registered has been substituted, the mutual title trust relation between the former and the former is terminated by a disposition of replotting, and even if the land has been maintained without changing the location and topography of the land in the form of replotting, barring any special circumstance, the mutual title trust relation between the former and the former owners is merely a pure co-ownership share in relation to the substituted land at a rate corresponding to the former land. However, if there are special circumstances, such as where co-owners, even after the substituted land, have ownership of a part of the substituted land, and have the mutual title trust relation as to the said part, or that co-owners have had the intention to maintain, use, and benefit from each previous use as they are, even after the substituted land is maintained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da6840, Sep. 9, 194; 91Nu1018, May 12, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 3 corporation, the non-party 1, and the Korea Untiltilt Co., Ltd. based on its proof of evidence completed the share transfer registration at the rate corresponding to the size of possession for convenience since it was non-party 4's own land from the Republic of Korea on the date of its judgment. Since since 1964, Incheon City Co., Ltd. purchased the specific portion of the above land from the above non-party, but it was difficult to recognize the share transfer registration as to the whole one parcel because it was difficult to take a replotting disposition because the land was purchased from the above non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, and the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 purchased the above land as the land of this case on the land of this case on the 9th of February 14, 1970.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the land readjustment project implementer divided the above ( Address 1 omitted) about 986, which is in the sectionally owned co-ownership relation, into four lots on the land surface according to the shape of each specific possession part of the possessor, and then divides the land into four lots by the part of possession, which is not the land substitution but the land substitution by the part of possession, after hearing the opinion of the possessor, and accordingly, the possessor has occupied each specific parcel of land after the land substitution corresponding to the portion possessed by each owner before the land substitution, it is reasonable to view that there was an explicit or implied agreement between the possessor to maintain the share transfer registration of each parcel of land after the land substitution as a mutual title trust relation, and such relation still remains between his successors. Accordingly, it is reasonable to determine that the transfer registration of shares in the defendant's name on the register of the land of this case, which the court below purchased and possessed solely by the plaintiffs, is a title trust registration, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sectionally owned co-ownership or the registration of title trust.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)