Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
No eviction claim against a building owner on another's land
Supreme Court, June 30, 2022, 2021Da276256 (judgment)
Case name: 건물퇴거청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a landowner, whose land is occupied through another's ownership of a building standing on it, claim that the building owner leave the building, and does the same apply where the building is co-owned and the occupier is one of its co-owners?
Holding
No. The landowner may claim only the demolition of the building on that land and the delivery of the land; there is no title to claim eviction of a person who occupies a building that belongs to that person, and the same holds for a co-owner of a co-owned building. A co-owner who possesses the building is taken to possess their own building regardless of the size of their share, and the portion exceeding their ownership share cannot be notionally severed and treated as another's possession. A co-owner's continued possession after a final judgment ordering demolition only within that share is a mere reflection of the landowner's not yet having obtained a title to demolish the whole building.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
건물 소유자가 건물의 소유를 통하여 타인 소유의 토지를 점유하고 있다고 하더라도 토지 소유자로서는 건물의 철거와 대지 부분의 인도를 청구할 수 있을 뿐, 자기 소유의 건물을 점유하고 있는 사람에 대하여 건물에서 퇴거할 것을 청구할 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where the owner of a building occupies land owned by another person by virtue of owning the building, the landowner may claim only the demolition of the building and the delivery of the site portion thereof, and cannot claim that a person occupying the building owned by him or her vacate the building.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
건물 소유자가 건물의 소유를 통하여 타인 소유의 토지를 점유하고 있다고 하더라도 토지 소유자로서는 건물의 철거와 대지 부분의 인도를 청구할 수 있을 뿐, 자기 소유의 건물을 점유하고 있는 사람에 대하여 건물에서 퇴거할 것을 청구할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
Even where the owner of a building occupies land owned by another person by virtue of owning the building, the landowner may claim only the demolition of the building and the delivery of the site portion thereof, and cannot claim that a person occupying the building owned by him or her vacate the building
Factors
- 모든 공유자는 공유물 전부를 지분의 비율로 사용·수익할 수 있다(민법 제263조).
- 공유자가 건물을 점유하는 것은 그 소유 지분과 관계없이 자기 소유의 건물에 대한 점유로 보아야 하고
- 토지 소유자는 토지 소유권에 기한 방해배제청구권의 행사로써 그 지상 건물의 철거와 해당 토지의 인도를 구할 수 있을 뿐이고
- 토지 소유자로서는 건물 전체에 대하여 철거에 관한 집행권원을 확보하여 곧바로 집행에 들어가거나 철거집행 전까지 토지 점유에 관한 부당이득반환 등을 청구하는 방법으로 권리구제를 받을 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
• All co-owners may use and take profits from the whole of the co-owned property in proportion to their shares (Article 263 of the Civil Act).
• A co-owner's occupation of the building must be regarded as occupation of the building owned by himself or herself, irrespective of his or her ownership share, and
• the landowner may seek, by exercising a claim for removal of interference based on ownership of the land, only the demolition of the building thereon and the delivery of the relevant land, and
• the landowner may obtain relief by securing an enforceable title for the demolition of the entire building and proceeding directly to enforcement, or by claiming restitution for unjust enrichment, etc. arising from the occupation of the land, until the enforcement of demolition is carried out.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1999. 7. 9. 선고 98다57457, 57464 판결(공1999하, 1593), 대법원 2020. 5. 21. 선고 2018다287522 전원합의체 판결(공2020하, 1198)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 98Da57457, 57464 decided July 9, 1999 (Gong 1999 Ha, 1593), Supreme Court en banc judgment 2018Da287522 decided May 21, 2020 (Gong 2020 Ha, 1198)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1999. 7. 9. 선고 98다57457, 57464 판결(공1999하, 1593), 대법원 2020. 5. 21. 선고 2018다287522 전원합의체 판결(공2020하, 1198)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What conditions and measure govern a landowner's claim for restitution for the occupation of the land before the demolition of the building is carried out?
The judgment of the Seoul High Court on remand will show how the rule is applied to continued possession of a shared multipurpose room. Any amendment to Articles 213, 214, 262 or 263 of the Civil Act, or a later Supreme Court decision treating a co-owner's exclusive possession differently, would call for 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 “What conditions and measure govern a landowner's claim for restitution for the occupation of the land before the demolition of the building is carried out?” vs Independent “How should liability for unjust enrichment from occupation of the land be allocated among the building's co-owners?”
The primary reading asks what requirements and measure govern unjust enrichment claims for land occupation before demolition, while the independent reading asks how that liability is divided among co-owners.
건물 소유자가 건물의 소유를 통하여 타인 소유의 토지를 점유하고 있다고 하더라도 토지 소유자로서는 건물의 철거와 대지 부분의 인도를 청구할 수 있을 뿐, 자기 소유의 건물을 점유하고 있는 사람에 대하여 건물에서 퇴거할 것을 청구할 수 없다.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 19 August 2021 (2021Na2002569), accepted the plaintiff landowner's claim that Defendant leave the multipurpose room of the apartment building. It reasoned that the final judgment of 6 April 2017 had ordered Defendant to demolish that room only in proportion to his own share and had ordered the other shares to be demolished by other owners, so that Defendant, who bore no demolition obligation for the shares beyond his own and yet kept occupying the room, was obstructing the exercise of the plaintiff's land ownership.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misunderstood the law on whether a landowner may evict a co-owner of the building, and that the error affected the judgment. Defendant, as one of the co-owners of the multipurpose room, was using and occupying a building that belonged to the co-owners including himself, so the plaintiff had no title to claim his eviction. The Court reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court, with the unanimous agreement of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A claim for demolition of the building on the land and delivery of the land, which the decision expressly leaves open to the landowner.
- A possessor who is not a co-owner of the building and occupies it without right, since the Court distinguished such a third party's trespass from a co-owner's possession.
- A case in which a final judgment ordering demolition of the whole building has already been obtained, so that execution against the building is possible.
Record verification notes
Establish first who owns the building and whether the occupier is its owner or one of its co-owners, since the rule turns on the possession being of one's own building. Then read the claim as pleaded: an eviction claim is barred, while demolition and delivery of the land remain available. Finally, check whether an execution title for the whole building exists and, if not, whether unjust enrichment for the land's occupation has been claimed before the demolition is carried out.
From the official text
Points at issue
건물 소유자가 건물의 소유를 통하여 타인 소유의 토지를 점유하고 있는 경우, 토지 소유자가 건물 소유자에게 건물에서 퇴거할 것을 청구할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 이러한 법리는 건물이 공유관계에 있는 경우에 건물의 공유자에 대해서도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where the owner of a building occupies land owned by another person by virtue of owning the building, whether the landowner may claim that the owner of the building vacate the building (negative), and whether such legal principle likewise applies to a co-owner of the building where the building is under co-ownership (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
건물 소유자가 건물의 소유를 통하여 타인 소유의 토지를 점유하고 있다고 하더라도 토지 소유자로서는 건물의 철거와 대지 부분의 인도를 청구할 수 있을 뿐, 자기 소유의 건물을 점유하고 있는 사람에 대하여 건물에서 퇴거할 것을 청구할 수 없다. 이러한 법리는 건물이 공유관계에 있는 경우에 건물의 공유자에 대해서도 마찬가지로 적용된다. 그 이유는 다음과 같다. ① 모든 공유자는 공유물 전부를 지분의 비율로 사용·수익할 수 있다(민법 제263조). 공유자가 공유물에 대하여 가지는 공유지분권은 소유권의 분량적 일부이지만 하나의 독립된 소유권과 같은 성질을 가지므로, 공유자는 소유권의 권능에 속하는 사용·수익권을 갖는다. 설령 공유자 중 1인이 공유물을 독점적으로 점유하여 사용·수익하고 있더라도, 공유자 아닌 제3자가 공유물을 무단으로 점유하는 것과는 다르다. 따라서 공유자가 건물을 점유하는 것은 그 소유 지분과 관계없이 자기 소유의 건물에 대한 점유로 보아야 하고, 소유 지분을 넘는 부분을 관념적으로 분리하여 그 부분을 타인의 점유라고 볼 수 없다. ② 토지 소유자는 토지 소유권에 기한 방해배제청구권의 행사로써 그 지상 건물의 철거와 해당 토지의 인도를 구할 수 있을 뿐이고 건물의 점유 자체를 회복하거나 건물에 관한 공유자의 사용관계를 정할 권한이 없다. 토지 소유자로 하여금 그 지상 건물 공유자를 상대로 퇴거 청구를 할 수 있도록 허용한다면 토지 소유자가 건물의 점유 자체를 회복하도록 하거나 해당 건물에 관한 공유자의 사용관계를 임의로 정하게 하는 결과를 가져오게 된다. ③ 소유 지분의 범위에서 철거를 명하는 확정판결을 받은 공유자가 계속하여 건물을 점유하는 것은 토지 소유자가 건물 전체의 철거를 명하는 확정판결을 받지 못하여 철거집행이 불가능한 상황에 따른 반사적 효과에 지나지 않는다. 토지 소유자로서는 건물 전체에 대하여 철거에 관한 집행권원을 확보하여 곧바로 집행에 들어가거나 철거집행 전까지 토지 점유에 관한 부당이득반환 등을 청구하는 방법으로 권리구제를 받을 수 있다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제213조, 제214조, 제262조, 제263조
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