(a) Whether the successful bidder who acquired a co-ownership share by exercising the right to collateral security established in the partitioned ownership's co-ownership acquires the partitioned ownership's co-ownership as it is (affirmative); and

(b) A relationship between those who specify and fire a part of the land of the reserved land for replotting of the reverted property, and have paid the price therefor in full;

A. Since the acquisition of ownership by auction is acquired by succession due to its nature, the successful bidder who acquired the above co-ownership share by the exercise of the right to collateral security after establishing the right to collateral security on the registration of co-ownership indicating the sectional co-ownership relationship of a specific part of land.

B. Those who specified a part of the land of the land of the land reserved for replotting with regard to the reverted property and did not obtain the general co-ownership share for the entire land substitution by full payment of the price of the land reserved for replotting, but acquire the ownership of the specific part of the land reserved for replotting which is occupied and used

a.B. Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 262 of the Title Trust Act and Article 646-2(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 57 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act and Article 22 of the Asset Disposal Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da59, 86Meu307 Decided August 23, 198 (Gong1988, 1234) (Gong1989, 812) Decided April 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 812) 88Meu14366 Decided June 26, 199 (Gong190, 1551) (Gong1990, 151)

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al.

Defendant 1 and two Defendants, Defendant 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na50609 delivered on December 14, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above part of the land owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 9'.

2. As to the first ground for appeal:

Since the acquisition of ownership by auction is acquired by succession in nature, as the court below decided in this case, the successful bidder who acquired the above co-ownership share by the exercise of the right to collateral security shall be deemed to have acquired the divided co-ownership share as it is, after establishing the right to collateral security on the registration of co-ownership indicating the sectional co-ownership relation of a specific part of land as determined in this case, and therefore, the court below's decision is just and

3. As to ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the fact that the Korean Commercial Bank established the right to collateral security was the main part of the land in this case and that the authorities approved the application for exchange between the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence.

The misunderstanding of this point is attributable to the criticism of the fact-finding and evidence preparation, which are all the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, and it is not justified (In addition, according to the previous records, it can be seen that the above facts have been established in the previous litigation between the plaintiffs' electronic seal bank and defendant 1 and the former non-party 5. See Gap evidence 4, 5, see the evidence).

4. As to the third ground for appeal:

The court below is just in holding that the above non-party 1 and non-party 2, the former co-owner of the plaintiff and the defendant of this case, become the so-called sectional co-owner of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land substitution, because they did not acquire the general co-ownership share for the entire land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the substitution which is occupied and used each period by making a full payment of the price of the land of the land of the land of the land of the land of the substitution, but they acquire the sectional ownership for the specific part

5. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)