[1] The validity of a disposition of land substitution change as long as a disposition of land substitution change is not followed after a disposition of land substitution becomes final and conclusive (negative)

[2] Requirements for the purchaser of the property devolvingd to acquire ownership and the validity of the disposal of the property devolvingd by the State to another person after the price was paid in full (negative)

[3] The legal relationship of land owners and the standard for determining the share ratio of the previous land owners, which is given through a joint land substitution disposition

[1] After a replotting disposition becomes effective after it becomes final and conclusive, a replotting change disposition to the effect that it is correct retroactively cannot be made. If such a replotting change procedure is necessary, the entire replotting procedure shall be taken for that purpose from the beginning, and only a part of it shall be removed from the beginning, and the replotting change disposition shall be null and void unless it takes such procedure.

[2] The act of selling the land which is the property devolving upon the government agency is an administrative disposition and its ownership is automatically transferred to the purchaser without requiring registration if the purchaser pays the purchase price in full in light of the provisions of Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. Thus, if the Republic of Korea sells the land again, it cannot be deemed that the purchaser has the right to dispose of the property after the purchase price was paid in full and finally acquired the ownership, and if the Republic of Korea sells it again, it shall be a disposition of invalidation as

[3] Even if several specific parts of a parcel of land were owned independently, if they were jointly owned with one parcel of land, the number is the co-ownership of the substitute land according to the proportion corresponding to the previous parcel of land, so the previous separate ownership relationship with each parcel of land is resolved, and the person sharing one parcel of land can only claim the right to share of the substitute land. Since anyone who owns one parcel of land cannot use the land exclusively, the specific part of the previous land can only claim the right to share of the land after the land is jointly replaced, and it cannot be exclusively occupied or used, and if the co-ownership relationship is formed through a joint land substitution, the share ratio is determined in consideration of various circumstances, such as the relation, location, land category, degree of use, soil quality, environment, etc. of the previous parcel of land.

[1] Articles 47 (1) and 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act / [2] Article 22 of the Land Disposal Act, Article 187 of the Civil Act, Article 568 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 262 and 263 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da14878 delivered on May 27, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 118), Supreme Court Decision 92Da34803, 34810 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3060 delivered on December 21, 197), Supreme Court Decision 70Da845 delivered on December 21, 197 (No19-3, 1977), Supreme Court en banc Decision 845 delivered on December 16, 198 (Gong198, 1985, 198, 197) (Gong1985, 1986, 197, 1989, 197, 2985, 1986, 298, 1967, 1986.

Plaintiff (Law Firm General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Jong-gn et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Han-ro General Law Office, Attorneys Jeong Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na49918 delivered on October 2, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

원심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여, 환지 전 서울 동대문구 ○○동 (지번 1 생략) 대 992평 및 (지번 2 생략) 대 1,770평은 원래 귀속재산으로서 대한민국의 소유였고, 위 (지번 1 생략) 토지 일대는 1940. 1. 10. 총독부고시 제12호에 의하여 △△토지구획정리사업지구에 편입되어 구획정리사업이 시행된 사실, 대한민국은 위 각 토지 중 주민들이 그 지상에 가옥을 소유하고 있는 토지 부분을 그 점유 현황에 따라 매각하기로 하여 1958. 7. 31. 피고의 망부인 소외 1에게 그가 점유하고 있는 토지 부분을 대강의 도면으로 특정하고 그 위치 및 지적을 위 (지번 1 생략) 대 19.4평 및 (지번 2 생략) 대 3.6평으로 표시하여 그 대금을 10년간 분할상환 조건으로 매각하였고, 1960. 5. 31. 원고에게도 같은 방법으로 그 점유 부분을 특정하고 그 위치 및 지적을 위 (지번 2 생략) 대 30평으로 표시하여 그 대금을 3년간 분할상환 조건으로 매각한 사실, 그러나 실제로는 원고가 매수한 부분은 위 (지번 2 생략) 토지의 일부와 위 (지번 1 생략) 토지의 일부에 걸쳐 있었던 반면, 피고의 망부인 소외 1이 매수한 부분은 위 (지번 1 생략) 토지의 일부이었던 사실, 그 후 위 (지번 1 생략)의 토지는 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평을 비롯한 31필지로 분할되었고, 위 (지번 2 생략)의 토지는 (지번 4 생략) 대 15평을 비롯한 40필지로 분할된 사실, 원고는 1960. 5. 31. 대한민국에 위 귀속재산의 매수대금을 납부한 후 그 일대에 대한 정밀측량을 실시한 결과 원고가 매수한 토지가 분할 후 위 (지번 4 생략) 토지와 (지번 3 생략) 토지로 확인되자 1967년 5월경 그 지번 및 지적을 변경받은 후 면적이 증가한 6평에 대한 대금을 같은 달 13. 대한민국에 추가로 납부한 사실, 위 소외 1은 대한민국에 자신이 매수한 위 토지에 대한 대금을 분할상환하여 오다가 1961. 7. 24. 사망하자 피고가 그 잔금을 1968. 7. 15.까지 완납한 사실, 한편, △△지구 토지구획정리사업은 1964년경 완료되어 서울특별시는 같은 해 9. 30. 위 (지번 1 생략) 토지에서 분할된 위 (지번 3 생략) 등 31필지 전체 면적 992평을 (지번 5 생략) 대 363.2평으로 합동환지(감보율 64%)하였고, 원고가 당초 매수한 토지인 위 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평이 위치한 부분에 대하여는 (지번 6 생략) 대 19.6평과 (지번 7 생략) 대 16.5평의 일부로 그 지번과 지적이 변경하여 소외 2 소유의 (지번 8 생략) 대 87평의 일부에 대한 환지로 지정한 사실, 위 소외 2는 위 환지처분 결과에 따라 1966년경 원고를 상대로 위 (지번 3 생략) 지상 건물의 철거 및 토지인도소송을 제기하여 그 승소판결이 확정되자 원고는 1971년경 그 점유 부분 중 일부를 소외 2에게 인도하여 줌과 동시에 나머지 대지 부분인 위 (지번 4 생략) 토지 및 그 지상 건물을 소외 3에게 매도하고 다른 곳으로 이사한 사실, 피고는 1986년 6월경에 이르러 위 소외 1이 매수한 토지의 지번 및 지적을 시정하여 줄 것을 요구하자 대한민국은 같은 달 27. 위 소외 1이 매수한 토지가 실제로는 위 합동환지에 위치함에도 그 지번 및 지적을 종전 지번 (지번 1 생략) 대 19.4평 및 (지번 2 생략) 대 3.6평에서 원고 매수 토지와 중복되는 지번인 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평으로 시정하여 줌과 아울러 피고와 사이에 그 매수인의 명의를 위 소외 1에서 피고로 변경하는 갱신계약을 체결하여 준 사실, 위와 같은 환지처분 후 실지 점유 현황과 공부상의 내역이 일치하지 아니하여 주민들로부터 장기간 민원이 제기되자 서울특별시는 1985년 6월경부터 주민들의 민원에 따라 실제 점유 현황대로 위 환지처분을 정정하는 사업을 추진함에 있어서, 위 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평을 (지번 9 생략) 대 35.7㎡로 정정하여 환지하는 환지처분정정처분을 하는 한편, 위 (지번 6 생략) 대 19.6평은 (지번 11 생략) 대 71.4㎡로, 위 (지번 7 생략) 대 16.5평은 (지번 13 생략) 대 53.6㎡로 각 지번 및 지적만을 변경한 사실, 피고는 같은 해 10. 31. 위 (지번 3 생략) 토지에 관하여 서울지방법원 동대문등기소 같은 날 접수 제72557호로 1958. 7. 31.자 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 경료한 후 등기부상 그 지번 및 지적이 위 환지처분정정처분에 따라 위 (지번 9 생략) 대 35.7㎡로 정리되자 1988. 12. 12. 자신이 위 소외 2로부터 매수한 다른 위 (지번 13 생략) 대 53.6㎡와 합필등기를 경료하여 현재는 (지번 9 생략) 토지의 지적이 89.3㎡로 되었으며, 그 중 합필 전의 위 (지번 9 생략) 대 35.7㎡의 위치는 원심 판시 별지도면 ㉯표시 부분인 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 귀속재산인 환지 전 위 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평은 원고가 이를 매수하여 1967. 5. 13. 그 대금을 완납함으로써 그 소유권을 취득한 토지임에도 이와 별개의 토지를 취득한 피고가 마치 위 (지번 3 생략) 토지를 취득한 것처럼 그 지번 및 지적을 정정하여 경료한 합필 후 위 (지번 9 생략) 대 89.3㎡ 중 위 ㉯표시 부분에 관한 위 소유권이전등기는 원인무효의 등기로서 말소되어야 한다는 원고의 이 사건 주위적 청구에 대하여, 원고가 당초 매수한 위 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평에 대한 원고의 소유권은 1964. 9. 30.자 환지확정처분에 의하여 확정적으로 소멸하였고, 원고가 그 말소를 구하는 위 ㉯표시 부분에 해당하는 합필 전 (지번 9 생략) 대 35.7㎡는 처음부터 피고의 망부인 위 소외 1이 매수한 토지로서 위 소외 1 및 그를 승계한 피고가 1968년경 매수대금을 완납함으로써 그 소유권을 취득할 위치에 있었다가 서울특별시에서 점유 현황에 따라 환지처분을 정정하기로 함에 따라 위 합필 전 (지번 9 생략) 대 35.7㎡를 환지받음으로써 이 부분에 대한 소유권을 확정적으로 취득한 것이고, 위 (지번 9 생략) 대 35.7㎡로 환지된 토지는 당초 피고가 매수한 위 ㉯부분에 해당하는 위 분할 전 (지번 1 생략) 일부 토지일 뿐 피고가 위 매수 토지를 특정함에 있어 착오로 잘못 신청·등재한 위 (지번 3 생략) 대 21평을 표상하는 것으로 볼 수 없다고 판단하여, 이를 배척하였다.

2. As to the corrective disposition of replotting

After a replotting disposition becomes effective once it becomes final and conclusive, a disposition to alter a replotting to the effect that it should be corrected retroactively cannot be taken, and if such procedures are necessary, a whole procedure of replotting shall be taken from the beginning for that purpose, and only a part of them shall not be removed from the beginning, and a disposition to alter a replotting shall be null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da14878, May 27, 1993; 91Nu827, Nov. 10, 1992).

According to the records, as a result of the completion of a land readjustment project for the above △△ District, the first land substitution disposition for the entire 31 parcel divided from around 992 to around 363.2 on September 30, 1964, which became final and conclusive on September 30, 1964, which was divided into the above △△ District as a result of the completion of the land readjustment project for the above △△ District, but the first land substitution disposition for the above 31 parcel divided from around 992 to around 363.2 on September 2, 1964 was filed by the residents again due to the lack of the actual possession status and the details in the public register, the land substitution disposition for the above △△ District was divided into the actual possession status at the time, and was divided into 363.2 square meters after the above land substitution, and as a principle, it cannot be said that the new land substitution disposition for the above △△△ District was implemented at the end of 2 years from the beginning of the previous land substitution disposition.

However, the court below did not examine whether the replotting procedure, such as the approval of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, was newly followed, and held that the defendant obtained the ownership of a substitute lot of 35.7 square meters (number 9 omitted) prior to the combination of lots on the premise that such a replotting disposition is legitimate and effective, and on the premise that such replotting disposition is legitimate and effective, the defendant acquired the ownership finally. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the procedure to correct the confirmed replotting disposition, and there is a reason to point out this issue.

3. As to the acquisition of ownership of the property devolving upon the State

The act of selling land belonging to a government agency is an administrative disposition, and if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price in light of the provisions of Article 22 of the Act, the ownership is automatically transferred to the purchaser without requiring registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu14998, May 25, 1990). Thus, if the Republic of Korea re-sales the land, it cannot be deemed that the purchaser has the authority to dispose of the property in full and finally acquired the ownership after the year when the purchaser completely pays the purchase price and finally acquired the ownership, it shall not be deemed that the Republic of Korea has the authority to dispose of the property. Thus, if the Republic of Korea re-sales it, it would be a disposition of invalidation by a government agency without authority (see, e.g

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, since the plaintiff purchased approximately 21 square meters of the above previous land (number 3 omitted) and acquired the ownership (which means the corresponding co-ownership right on the land (number 14 omitted) finally and finally since he completely paid the price on May 11, 1967, as seen later, the plaintiff acquired the ownership (which means the corresponding co-ownership right on the land (number 14 omitted) after replotting. Thus, although the Republic of Korea does not have the right to dispose of the above land any longer, the above non-party 1 corrected the lot number and the land pointed out on June 27, 1987 at approximately 21 square meters of the above (number 3 omitted) although he did not have the right to dispose of the above land, even if the above non-party 1's disposition was considered as a double sale, it is invalid as it constitutes a new sale disposition by an agency without the former authority. Therefore, it is reasonable

4. As to the confirmation of replotting and acquisition of ownership of the previous land

As a result of a replotting disposition, land substitution is deemed to have been viewed as the previous land from the day following the date of public announcement of the replotting disposition. The previous land owner loses the ownership of the previous land from the date of public announcement of the replotting disposition, while acquiring the ownership of the newly conferred land at the same time, and even if several or all of several parcels of land independently owned each specific part, such land owner is entitled to co-ownership of the substitute land according to the corresponding ratio to the previous land, so the previous private ownership relationship with each of the several parcels of land is terminated, and only the right to co-ownership of the substitute land can be asserted. Since a person who owns one parcel of land cannot exclusively use some of the previous land after the land was combined, the specific part of the previous land owner can only claim his/her co-ownership right, and it cannot be exclusively occupied and used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da5983, May 28, 1991; 208Da18689, Jun. 28, 1998).

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, on May 31, 1960, part of the purchase price for the above (number 1 omitted) land which is the property devolving upon the plaintiff on May 31, 1960 and 992 (number 1 omitted) was specified and sold together with part of the above (number 2 omitted) land before the above partition and the price was paid in full or it was divided into 31 lots before the ownership transfer registration was completed due to the above (number 1 omitted) land, for the whole land (number 1 omitted) which was the previous land, for which a replotting disposition to determine a joint land substitution at approximately 363.2, which is the above (number 1 omitted) was determined. Since the Republic of Korea conducted a precise survey on the land (number 1 omitted) which was divided from the above (number 3 omitted) and the above (number 1 omitted) land which was divided from the above (number 4 omitted) to the previous land (number 15 omitted), the land was newly determined to be disposed of by the plaintiff's newly within the previous replotting disposition after the land purchase price was finalized.

Therefore, if the portion indicated (number 9 omitted) among the above (number 14 omitted) land is part of the above (number 14 omitted) land after the combination of lots, the plaintiff has a co-ownership share corresponding to the above (number 3 omitted) land which is the previous land. Meanwhile, the above part of the ownership transfer registration in the defendant's name as to the above (number 3 omitted) portion of the above (number 14 omitted), as seen earlier, shall be the registration of invalidity of cause based on corrective measures, which is the invalidation of the land number and land register belonging to the above non-party 1, as seen in the above. Thus, the plaintiff can seek cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration based on his co-ownership right, barring special circumstances. However, the court below did not examine whether the above portion indicated (number 14 omitted) portion of the above (number 3 omitted) land is part of the above (number 14 omitted) land after the combination of lots, and the plaintiff's ownership as to the above (number 3 omitted) land is not in violation of the legal principles as to the previous disposition of land substitution.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)