In case where several parcels of land are jointly substituted with one piece of land, whether a person who has owned a specific part of the previous part or the whole part of the land alone can exclusively occupy and use a part of the substituted land (negative)

Even though several specific parts of each parcel of land were owned independently by each of them, if they jointly own one parcel of land, the number is the co-ownership of the substitute land according to the proportion corresponding to the previous land, so the previous private ownership relationship for each parcel of land is resolved, and only the co-ownership right against the actual replotting can be asserted thereafter. Since the co-ownership of one parcel of land cannot be exclusively used, anyone who owns one parcel of land cannot use the land, and eventually, the specific parts of the previous land can only claim the co-ownership right against the co-ownership right after the land is jointly substituted, and it cannot be exclusively occupied and used.

Articles 262 and 263 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da2299 delivered on June 27, 1978 (Gong1978, 1096) (Gong1418, 1419 delivered on December 13, 198) (Gong1989, 94) 88Meu26871, 26888 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1404)

School Foundation of Incheon ScarTol Education Foundation (Attorney Kim Jong-sung, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 9 others, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na24613 delivered on December 26, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 merely leased part of the above land owned by Nonparty 1 with 29.5 shares in the land ( Address 1 omitted), and Defendant 6 occupied part of the above building as co-owners with 29.5 shares in the above ( Address 1 omitted) and omitted part of the above land from Defendant 6's ownership transfer registration for the following reasons: Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10 did not own part of the above land within 48 shares in their own land, and they did not own part of the above land as co-ownership of the above 98 shares. Since the above land was owned by Nonparty 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, who were not registered as co-ownership of the above land, and were not registered as co-ownership of each of the above 1/6 shares in the above land (No later than 3/100 of the above land's own land and no more than 48/10 of the above land's own shares.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)