All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2010Da16090 Decided June 30, 2011[Real Property Ownership Transfer Registration] [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] In case where a landowner formed a contract transferring a certain area of one or several parcels of land, and the exact location of land to be transferred was not specified, the characteristic of the other party's claim against the landowner (=option claim) [2] In a case where Gap purchased a site to operate a furniture factory, but could not get necessary approvals for construction because the site was landlocked while Eul had not been able to utilize his land adjacent to the above site which was north-to-south long and narrow, thus Gap and Eul formed an exchange contract to first consolidate Eul's land to Gap's land and later divide the consolidated land and transfer an area corresponding to the size of Eul's original land to Eul, but did not specify the exact location of the land to be transferred, the Court reversing the decision of the court below which ordered joint ownership registration since an agreement analogous to a joint ownership agreement had been formed between the parties, on the ground that Eul's contractual right against Gap was an option claim under Article 380 of the Civil Act [3] The case holding that the judgment below ordering Gap a land share transfer of the share he unjustly enriched is erroneous as a misapprehension of legal principle in case where Gap and Eul formed an exchange contract to consolidate Eul's land to Gap's land and later transfer a part of the consolidated land equal to the size of Eul's original land to Eul, but in the process of land survey, Eul's land size was found to be bigger and Eul transferred the additional portion of land as corrected; since Eul's additional transfer was Eul's performance of duty under the original exchange contract, Gap should not be considered as being unjustly enriched | |
