Where Article 264 of the Civil Act does not apply to the disposal of ownership of real estate.

Even if a lot of land has been owned jointly on the register by many persons who are in the land due to the lack of a specific portion of the land and the transfer of ownership for convenience, it is not deemed that there is a special circumstance that each person can dispose of the land in the internal relationship of the co-owners, notwithstanding the restriction of this Article.

Article 264 of the Civil Act

Attorney Im Han-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Respondent, Attorney Yang Sung-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1969 delivered on July 19, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1969 delivered on July 19, 1967

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

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the applicant on the present allocation of representative, such as the whiteness of the applicant

The summary of the decision made on the ground that the original judgment rejected the applicant's application for provisional disposition is owned by the respondent and ten others. The respondent is a right holder of the land 415/983, and the respondent is the right holder of the land 415/983. The applicant paid 1,795,000 won as down payment and intermediate payment from the respondent to the respondent. However, the above sales contract is a disposition made by the respondent without the consent of the other co-owners, and it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement with the respondent to transfer the above share ownership of the respondent in the above sales contract between the applicant and the respondent. In addition, the above land cannot be registered before the confirmation registration of the ownership transfer by the above project was completed, and it cannot be registered before the completion of the settlement of the land after the reorganization project, and it is not confirmed that the applicant is either the land subject to the purchase and sale or the ownership transfer registration is not registered for the above land or the ownership transfer registration is not registered for the above land.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the original judgment and the purport of the pleading by the parties, the 983 square meters of this case occupies each specific area of the above land as a house site. However, since the applicant and the respondent did not have a separate ownership transfer registration for the specific land at 983 square meters of the total horizontal number of 983 square meters, the Respondent did not have a separate ownership transfer registration for the specific land at 96 square meters of the original land. Since the Respondent did not have a separate ownership transfer registration for the specific land without any objection of the other co-owners, the Respondent did not have a separate ownership transfer registration for the specific land at 96 square meters of the original land and the Respondent did not have a separate ownership transfer registration for the specific land at 96 square meters of the original land, the Respondent did not have a separate ownership transfer registration for the specific land at 96 square meters of the original land and the Respondent did not have the same effect as the previous registration for the land at 962 square meters of the original land.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu