Whether a co-owner has the right to possess and use the land, where the purchaser of the land takes over the land as a performance of a sales contract before the registration of ownership transfer is made (affirmative); and where co-owner who has exclusive possession and use a specific part of co-owned land intends to own it solely, whether the co-owner has the right to occupy and use the land exclusively in the process of implementing the procedure for the transfer of co-owned share as a result of the co-owned property partition agreement

Articles 192, 263, 568, and 587 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Won-si (Attorney Choi Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Na4089 Decided April 22, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If a purchaser of land takes over the land as a result of the performance of a sales contract even if the purchaser did not obtain the registration of co-owned property transfer, it shall be deemed that he/she has the right to possess and use the land as the validity of the sales contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12682, 12699, Jun. 25, 1996). In addition, even if a part of co-owners exclusively possess and use a specific part of co-owned land, if the co-owner’s agreement on co-owned property partition, which is to be the sole ownership of the co-owners possessing that part among the co-owners, has the right to exclusively occupy and use

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court, the lower court: (a) acknowledged that (i) on May 19, 2013, the Plaintiff owned 725/1,367 shares from Nonparty 1, who was holding from around 1973, 725/1,367 shares in maintaining 1,414m2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership; (b) notified the Defendant of the above assignment of ownership by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint; (c) on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant arising from the said shares from Nonparty 1 at the time of the said purchase; and (d) on the ground that the portion (i) of the attached drawings attached to the lower judgment among the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant reservoir”) was part of the period for the Defendant’s possession and management of the instant reservoir as agricultural infrastructure; and (e) rejected the lower court’s claim for unjust enrichment from the end of the Plaintiff’s ownership or the instant land.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following facts and circumstances.

(1) 이 사건 토지가 분할되어 나온 분할 전의 모토지인 원주시 (주소 2 생략) 전 1,367평(4,519㎡, 이하 ‘이 사건 분할 전 토지’라고 한다)에 관한 폐쇄등기부등본에 의하면, 이 사건 분할 전 토지는 원래 소외 2의 소유였다가 그중 725/1,367 지분에 관하여 1963. 2. 26. 소외 3 명의의 지분이전등기와 1973. 11. 27. 소외 1 명의의 지분이전등기가 순차로 마쳐졌다. 또한 우곡농지개량계는 1994. 12. 9. 구 부동산소유권 이전등기 등에 관한 특별조치법(1992. 11. 30. 법률 제4502호, 실효, 이하 ‘특별조치법’이라고 한다)에 의한 대위신청을 하여 이 사건 분할 전 토지가 같은 동 ㉠ (주소 2 생략) 전 638㎡(193평, 이후 지목이 ‘대지’로 변경되었다), ㉡ (주소 3 생략) 전 596㎡(180평), ㉢ (주소 4 생략) 전 439㎡(133평, 이후 지목이 ‘과수원’으로 변경되었다), ㉣ (주소 5 생략) 전 1,432㎡(433평), ㉤ (주소 1 생략) 전 1,414㎡(428평, 이후 지목이 ‘유지’로 변경되어 ‘이 사건 부동산’이 되었다)로 분할등기가 된 후, 같은 날 소외 2 명의의 공유지분인 642/1,367 지분에 관하여 1961. 8. 21. 매매를 원인으로 한 우곡농지개량계 명의의 지분이전등기가 마쳐졌다.

(2) 이후 위와 같이 이 사건 분할 전 토지에서 분할된 토지들 중에서 ㉠ (주소 2 생략) 대 638㎡(193평), ㉢ (주소 4 생략) 과수원 439㎡(133평), ㉣ (주소 5 생략) 전 1,432㎡(433평)에 관해서는 1996. 5. 20. 우곡농지개량계의 공유지분 전부에 관하여 1995. 5. 11. 공유물분할을 원인으로 하여 지분이전등기가 마쳐짐으로써 소외 1이 위 각 토지의 단독소유자가 되었다. 반면에 ㉡ (주소 3 생략) 전 596㎡(180평) 중 725/1,367 지분은 1973. 11. 27. 소외 1 명의 지분이전등기가 마쳐져 있다가 2013. 10. 11. 원고 명의 이전등기가 마쳐졌고, 642/1,367 지분은 1994. 12. 9. 특별조치법에 따라 1961. 8. 21. 매매를 원인으로 한 소외 2로부터 우곡농지개량계 명의로 지분이전등기가 마쳐졌으며, ㉤ 이 사건 토지(428평) 중 725/1,367 지분은 1973. 11. 27. 소외 1 명의 지분이전등기가 마쳐져 있다가 2013. 10. 11. 원고 명의 이전등기가 마쳐졌고, 642/1,367 지분은 여전히 소외 2 명의로 남아 있다.

(3) 우곡농지개량계 명의의 공유지분이 소외 1에게 공유물분할을 원인으로 지분이전등기가 된 토지의 면적은 759평(193 + 133 + 433)이고, 아직까지 소외 1과 우곡농지개량계(또는 소외 2)의 공유로 남아 있는 토지의 면적은 608평(180 + 428)인바, 이는 이 사건 분할 전 토지 중 소외 1의 공유지분인 725/1,367 지분, 우곡농지개량계의 공유지분인 642/1,367 지분과 약간의 차이가 있기는 하나 면적 비율이 거의 비슷하여 소외 1과 우곡농지개량계 사이에서는 1995. 5. 11.경 ㉠ (주소 2 생략) 대 638㎡(193평), ㉢ (주소 4 생략) 과수원 439㎡(133평), ㉣ (주소 5 생략) 전 1,432㎡(433평)는 소외 1의 단독소유로, ㉡ (주소 3 생략) 전 596㎡(180평), ㉤ 이 사건 토지(428평)는 우곡농지개량계의 단독소유로 하는 내용의 공유물분할협의가 있었던 것으로 볼 여지가 많다.

(4) Meanwhile, in the farmland improvement facility register prepared on August 30, 1977 by the Defendant, there is sufficient room to view that it is consistent with the fact that 5,514 square meters of three parcels among the facility sites of the instant reservoir are owned by a cooperative or a fraternity, five parcels are owned by a local government, 9,642 square meters of five parcels are owned by a local government, and 3,249 square meters of four parcels are divided into private ownership, and Mawre 3,249 square meters of four parcels are divided into private ownership.

B. Examining the above facts and circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the share of 725/1,367 out of the land of this case was registered as co-owner by Nonparty 1 through Nonparty 1, and the share of 642/1,367 as co-owner Nonparty 2 as co-owner, it is difficult to view the land of this case as the sole possession of Dae Farmland Improvement as the land of this case after purchase of the land of this case and delivery thereof, and the agreement was concluded to use the land of this case as the site of this case after the process of partition of co-owned property was completed. Thus, it is difficult to view that the land of this case was occupied and used by Dae Farmland Improvement, or that it was occupied and managed by the Defendant without permission, even if the land of this case was occupied and used by Dae Farmland Improvement, or under the approval or implied consent of Dae Farmland Improvement, and that the Plaintiff did not constitute unjust enrichment against the Defendant or the Plaintiff’

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court readily concluded that the Defendant’s possession of the instant reservoir site was an illegal possession, and thus, accepted most of the Plaintiff’s claim. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the claim for return of unjust enrichment, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)