구분소유적 공유의 성립

The establishment of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership

Supreme Court pronounced the following judgment, No. 2010 다 6611, on April 26, 2012. “In case that a co-owner of a single parcel, who have relationship with the state as the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership about the parcel, was experienced the expropriation of the parcel by the state, followed by execution of his/her repurchase right of the parcel thereafter, the repurchased object is assumed as the ownership of a certain portion of the identical parcel which had been expropriated, unless other agreement concluded among the interested parties, but is not considered as the co-owned share of the single parcel. However, the position of Supreme Court may be reconsidered for following aspects. First, the repurchase of the share in relation of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership needs to be reviewed. For the case of subject judgment, the location and area of the land were not clearly distinguished during the period of repurchase despite of restrictions such as registration presumption power, but the subject land were revealed to be used as apartment site or convenient or supplementary facility in the compromise protocol. Therefore, it is not clear that any object land of repurchase can be defined by execution of repurchase right and that the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership agreement at the time of exchange can be maintained. The Supreme Court judgment only confirmed that the characteristic of purchase by execution of the repurchase right according to Special Measure Order is the identical with the purchase in the jurisdictional terms as the grounds. However, the grounds for repurchase right and the intention of repurchase are discriminated, and the repurchase right itself does not include the agreement of subject definition. Moreover, the judgment details are not aligned with the compromise protocol. Therefore, the requirement of the meaningful co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership and relevant discussions need to be allowed for disposition of such de facto partition ownership among co-owners de facto partition ownership. Second consideration is the expropriation of share in relation of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership and the settlement of such de facto partition ownership relations. In the subject judgment case, the state possessed the land in dispute by itself by expropriating its share of the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership. Though the subject judgment does not clearly mention its disposition, it seems that the co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership is not resolved in connection with the following repurchase. However, if the name of registration is important, it is reasonable to assume that the de facto partition ownership is disposed when the registration is expired while it is possessed by single partitioned owner. Basically, intentions of interested parties and the requirements of the registration is expired while it is possessed by single partitioned owner should persist to maintain such the registration is expired while it is possessed by single partitioned owner in the courses of expropriation and repurchase right. Third, the de facto partition ownership agreement among interested parties is acknowledged since the provisional parting line is defined in the drawing according to the parting survey after acquiring the possession rights by the unilateral co-owner in the first trial judgment. The co-ownership representing de facto partition ownership is not available unless a certain portion of shared land is occupied or used, though the agreement of partition ownership is recognized since the partition agreement is hard to be accepted after repurchase. Supreme Court itself accepts