Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Demolition of a unit held without land-use rights is not abuse of rights
Supreme Court, July 8, 2021, 2017Da204247 (judgment)
Case name: 건물등철거
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the owner of the land of an apartment building claim demolition of the exclusive portion held by a unit owner who has no right to use the land, and does the practical impossibility of demolishing only some exclusive portions bar the claim or make it an abuse of rights?
Holding
Yes. The unit owners of a single apartment building own their exclusive portions separately while jointly occupying and using the whole building land, so the landowner may claim demolition of the exclusive portion of a unit owner who occupies the land without a land-use right. Because the building is one indivisible structure, tearing down or demolishing only some exclusive portions is practically impossible, but the whole building can still be demolished by a judgment against all unit owners or with their consent for each exclusive portion and common portion, and such a claim is not an indispensable joint action requiring all of them as co-defendants, so the practical impossibility is only an obstacle to enforcement and no reason to dismiss the claim. That impossibility is likewise no ground for holding the landowner's claim for demolition to be an abuse of rights.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
대지 소유자는 대지사용권 없이 전유부분을 소유하면서 대지를 무단 점유하는 구분소유자에 대하여 그 전유부분의 철거를 구할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The owner of the building site may seek demolition of the exclusively owned part against the unit owner who owns the exclusively owned part without a right to use the building site and occupies the building site without authority.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
일부 전유부분만을 철거하는 것이 사실상 불가능하다는 사정은 집행개시의 장애요건에 불과할 뿐 철거 청구를 기각할 사유에 해당하지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
The circumstance that it is practically impossible to demolish only some exclusively owned parts is merely an impediment to the commencement of execution and does not constitute a ground for dismissing the demolition claim.
Factors
- 1동의 집합건물의 구분소유자들은 그 전유부분을 구분소유하면서 건물의 대지 전체를 공동으로 점유·사용하는 것이므로
- 일부 전유부분만을 떼어내거나 철거하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다
- 구분소유자 전체를 상대로 각 전유부분과 공용부분의 철거 판결을 받거나 동의를 얻는 등으로 집합건물 전체를 철거하는 것은 가능하고
- 이와 같은 철거 청구가 구분소유자 전원을 공동피고로 해야 하는 필수적 공동소송이라고 할 수 없으므로
- 일부 전유부분만의 철거가 사실상 불가능하다고 하더라도 이는 집행개시의 장애요건에 불과할 뿐이어서
Unofficial English translation
• Since the unit owners of a single condominium building own their respective exclusively owned parts while jointly occupying and using the entire building site of the building,
• it is practically impossible to detach or demolish only some exclusively owned parts,
• it is possible to demolish the entire condominium building by obtaining a judgment ordering the demolition of each exclusively owned part and the common parts against all unit owners, or by obtaining their consent, and
• since such a demolition claim cannot be regarded as necessary co-litigation requiring all unit owners to be joined as co-defendants,
• even if the demolition of only some exclusively owned parts is practically impossible, this is merely an impediment to the commencement of execution, and thus
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1996. 11. 29. 선고 95다40465 판결(공1997상, 161)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 95Da40465 decided November 29, 1996 (Gong 1997 Sang, 161)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1996. 11. 29. 선고 95다40465 판결(공1997상, 161), 대법원 2011. 9. 8. 선고 2011다23125 판결, 대법원 2014. 9. 4. 선고 2012다7670 판결 / [2] 대법원 2011. 9. 8. 선고 2010다18447 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the unit owner holds a limited contractual permission to use part of the land, does the landowner's claim for demolition of the exclusive portion still stand?
A later decision that treats a refusal to demolish as an abuse of rights on facts other than physical impossibility would change the reading of point [2]. An amendment to Article 20(1) or (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Apartments, or to Article 214 or 366 of the Civil Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the unit owner holds a limited contractual permission to use part of the land, does the landowner's claim for demolition of the exclusive portion still stand?” vs Independent “What additional circumstances, beyond the practical impossibility of removing a single unit, could make a landowner's removal claim an abuse of rights?”
The primary asks whether the claim survives when the unit owner has a limited contractual permission to use part of the land, while the independent asks what further circumstances beyond practical impossibility would make the claim an abuse of rights.
대지 소유자는 대지사용권 없이 전유부분을 소유하면서 대지를 무단 점유하는 구분소유자에 대하여 그 전유부분의 철거를 구할 수 있다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 13 December 2016 (2016Na2031167), held that the defendant owned the condominium unit on the land without a right to use the land while the plaintiff held the share of the land corresponding to the unit's land-use right, so the defendant had a duty to demolish the unit. It also held that it could not simply find that demolishing the unit on the second floor of a three-storey building was physically impossible, and that in any event this was only an obstacle to enforcement and no ground for dismissing the claim. It found no breach of good faith or abuse of rights, and ordered restitution of unjust enrichment measured by the rent equivalent of the land area corresponding to the share.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act did not arise, because the land and the building were not owned by the same person when the mortgage was created in 1979 and a statutory superficies under customary law cannot arise where an auction under the mortgage separated the owners. It agreed that the landowner could claim demolition, but held that the finding below that only this unit could physically be demolished was not appropriate, since a unit of a single building cannot be torn away from the whole; the conclusion allowing the claim was still right, and all four grounds of appeal failed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A unit owner who holds a right to use the land, whether statutory, contractual or customary, since the rule concerns one who occupies the land without such a right.
- A case in which the land and the building were owned by the same person when the mortgage was created, so that a statutory superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act may be established.
- A claim for demolition of the whole building, which the Court treated as achievable with the consent or judgment against all unit owners rather than as the demolition of a single unit.
Record verification notes
Confirm first that the defendant holds no statutory, contractual or customary right to use the land, since the whole claim rests on that absence, and check the date the mortgage was created against who then owned the land and the building. Then set the unit's position within the building against the holding that a single unit cannot be separated from the one structure, and keep the enforcement obstacle apart from the merits of the claim.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 집합건물 대지의 소유자가 대지사용권 없이 전유부분을 소유하는 구분소유자에 대하여 전유부분의 철거를 구할 수 있는지 여부(적극) / 일부 전유부분만을 철거하는 것이 사실상 불가능하다는 사정이 철거 청구를 기각할 사유에 해당하는지 여부(소극) [2] 집합건물 대지의 소유자가 대지사용권을 갖지 아니한 구분소유자에 대하여 전유부분의 철거를 구하는 것이 권리남용에 해당하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the owner of the building site may seek demolition of the exclusively owned part against a unit owner who owns the exclusively owned part without a right to use the building site (affirmative) / Whether the circumstance that it is practically impossible to demolish only some exclusively owned parts constitutes a ground for dismissing the demolition claim (negative) [2] Whether the claim by the owner of the building site for demolition of the exclusively owned part against a unit owner who has no right to use the building site constitutes an abuse of rights (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 1동의 집합건물의 구분소유자들은 그 전유부분을 구분소유하면서 건물의 대지 전체를 공동으로 점유·사용하는 것이므로, 대지 소유자는 대지사용권 없이 전유부분을 소유하면서 대지를 무단 점유하는 구분소유자에 대하여 그 전유부분의 철거를 구할 수 있다. 집합건물은 건물 내부를 (구조상·이용상 독립성을 갖춘) 여러 개의 부분으로 구분하여 독립된 소유권의 객체로 하는 것일 뿐 1동의 건물 자체는 일체로서 건축되어 전체 건물이 존립과 유지에 있어 불가분의 일체를 이루는 것이므로, 1동의 집합건물 중 일부 전유부분만을 떼어내거나 철거하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다. 그러나 구분소유자 전체를 상대로 각 전유부분과 공용부분의 철거 판결을 받거나 동의를 얻는 등으로 집합건물 전체를 철거하는 것은 가능하고 이와 같은 철거 청구가 구분소유자 전원을 공동피고로 해야 하는 필수적 공동소송이라고 할 수 없으므로, 일부 전유부분만을 철거하는 것이 사실상 불가능하다는 사정은 집행개시의 장애요건에 불과할 뿐 철거 청구를 기각할 사유에 해당하지 않는다. [2] 집합건물 대지의 소유자는 대지사용권을 갖지 아니한 구분소유자에 대하여 전유부분의 철거를 구할 수 있고, 일부 전유부분만의 철거가 사실상 불가능하다고 하더라도 이는 집행개시의 장애요건에 불과할 뿐이어서 대지 소유자의 건물 철거 청구가 권리남용에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제2조, 제20조 제1항, 제2항, 민법 제214조 [2] 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제2조, 제7조, 민법 제2조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger