The legal relationship in a case where a specific part of a parcel of land is transferred by specifying it, and a co-ownership registration on the whole part is made for convenience, and then the specific part is transferred by whole.

If a part of the land is assigned by specifying and completing a co-ownership registration on the whole part for convenience, it is valid as the registration of the trustee under mutual title trust. If the specific part is transferred by transfer and the co-ownership registration is completed accordingly, the status of mutual title trust is also succeeded to the status of the previous transferor and the last transferee of the specific part, thereby establishing a title trust relationship between the first transferor and the last transferee of the specific part.

Articles 186 (title Trust) and 262 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Da634 delivered on December 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 14480) (Gong1981, 1480) 86Da59,86Meu307 delivered on August 23, 198 (Gong1988, 1234) (Gong1988, 1234) 88Meu7184 delivered on April 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 812)

Total 100

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 86Na811 delivered on April 20, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the non-performance of reasons:

In the judgment of the court below, the reason that there is an obvious error such as the theory of lawsuit is only the ground for correction of the judgment below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Therefore, it is not reasonable to argue that the judgment below erred

2. As to the violation of the rules of evidence and the violation of the reasons therefor:

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below as to the theory of lawsuit can be accepted, and no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence and violation of the reasoning shall be discovered in the judgment below. The arguments are groundless.

3. As to the misapprehension of legal principles on ownership and title trust:

Where part of a parcel of land is assigned by specifying and completing a co-ownership registration on the whole part for convenience, the registration of the trustee under mutual title trust shall be valid, and if the specific part is transferred by transfer and the co-ownership share registration is completed accordingly, the title trust relationship between the first transferor and the last transferee of the specific part shall be established by succession to the status of mutual title trust as mentioned above (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da634 delivered on December 9, 1980).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on ownership and title trust in the judgment below. We cannot employ the arguments.

4. As to the abuse, etc. of the right to request a statement:

In light of the record, there is no illegality of abuse of right to life, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process of examining the examination of Kim Jae-ok of the court below, and it does not appear that the presiding judge of the court below has a content to doubt the existence of prejudice and prejudice, such as the theory of lawsuit, which the court below made the user to make a written statement to the user in writing. The arguments cannot be employed.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won