Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Partition of condominium land when non-unit owners hold shares
Supreme Court, Sept. 14, 2023, 2022Da271753 (judgment)
Case name: 공유물분할
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the land of a condominium building is co-owned by unit owners and by co-owners who are not unit owners, may a claim for partition of that land be allowed exceptionally despite the prohibition in Article 8 of the Condominium Act?
Holding
The Court held that Article 8 of the Condominium Act bars such a claim because the land stands in unity and indivisibility with the unit ownership above it, and allowing partition on ordinary co-ownership rules would bring the land-use relationship of the building to ruin, so the prohibition protects the communal life of the building. It may nevertheless be allowed: where the land is co-owned by unit-owning co-owners and non-unit-owning co-owners, and special circumstances make it right to vest the land in the unit-owning co-owners while giving the others the price of their shares without harming substantive fairness between the co-owners, the partition claim is permitted in view of that legislative purpose. The Supreme Court found no error in the judgment below and dismissed all the appeals.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
당해 대지를 집합건물의 구분소유자인 공유자에게 취득시키고 구분소유자가 아닌 다른 공유자에게는 그 지분의 가격을 취득시키는 것이 공유자 간의 실질적인 공평을 해치지 않는다고 인정되는 특별한 사정이 있어 그와 같이 공유물을 분할하는 것이 허용되는 경우에는, 그러한 공유물에 대한 분할청구는 집합건물법 제8조의 입법 취지에 비추어 허용된다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
Where there is a special circumstance recognized as not impairing substantial fairness among the co-owners to cause a co-owner who is a sectional owner of the condominium building to acquire the site in question and to cause the other co-owners who are not sectional owners to acquire the price of their shares, and thus dividing the co-owned property in that manner is permitted, a claim for partition of such co-owned property should be regarded as permissible in light of the legislative purpose of Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고 1 및 피고 2의 승계인수인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the successors who assumed the final appeal of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
당해 대지를 집합건물의 구분소유자인 공유자에게 취득시키고 구분소유자가 아닌 다른 공유자에게는 그 지분의 가격을 취득시키는 것이 공유자 간의 실질적인 공평을 해치지 않는다고 인정되는 특별한 사정이 있어
Unofficial English translation
there is a special circumstance recognized as not impairing substantial fairness among the co-owners to cause a co-owner who is a sectional owner of the condominium building to acquire the site in question and to cause the other co-owners who are not sectional owners to acquire the price of their shares,
Factors
- 집합건물의 대지는 그 지상의 구분소유권과 일체성 내지 불가분성을 가지는데
- 집합건물의 대지를 집합건물의 구분소유자인 공유자와 구분소유자가 아닌 공유자가 공유하고 있고
- 공유자 간의 실질적인 공평을 해치지 않는다고 인정되는 특별한 사정이 있어
- 그러한 공유물에 대한 분할청구는 집합건물법 제8조의 입법 취지에 비추어 허용된다고 보는 것이 타당하다
Unofficial English translation
• The site of a condominium building has unity or inseparability with the sectional ownership of the building thereon;
• the site of a condominium building is co-owned by a co-owner who is a sectional owner of the condominium building and a co-owner who is not a sectional owner, and
• there is a special circumstance recognized as not impairing substantial fairness among the co-owners, and
• a claim for partition of such co-owned property should be regarded as permissible in light of the legislative purpose of Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 12. 27. 선고 2005다66374, 66381 판결(공2008상, 119)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2005Da66374, 2005Da66381, decided December 27, 2007 (Gong 2008 Sang, 119)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2004. 10. 14. 선고 2004다30583 판결(공2004하, 1805), 대법원 2007. 12. 27. 선고 2005다66374, 66381 판결(공2008상, 119)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances make it right to vest condominium land in the unit-owning co-owners while paying the non-unit-owning co-owners the price of their shares, without harming substantive fairness between them?
A later decision that finds or refuses the special circumstances on a different record of co-owners and shares would show how this exception is applied. Any amendment to Article 8 of the Condominium Act would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Northern District Court, in its judgment of 18 August 2022 (2021Na30892), ordered that the plaintiffs' shares in the lands be partitioned by full price compensation and vested in Defendant 1 and the successor-in-interest to Defendant 2, on the view that this result accords with securing the basis of the building's existence and protecting its communal life. It also found that Defendant 1 exclusively occupied and used Land 1 from 6 December 2016 to 10 April 2019, after ownership-preservation registration for the condominium had been made, and that Defendant 1 owed the plaintiffs unjust enrichment equal to rent in proportion to their shares in each land.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the unjust enrichment claim, it held that the court below had not misunderstood the law on unjust enrichment from exclusive use of the co-owned land of a condominium, on calculating the amount, or on the disposition and management of the co-ownership shares, and that the Supreme Court decisions cited by Defendant 1 were distinguishable. On the partition claim, it held that the court below had not erred in the standing of the parties, the method of partition, or the prohibition on partition claims under the Condominium Act, and dismissed all the appeals, with the costs on Defendant 1 and the successor-in-interest to Defendant 2.
Distinguishing conditions
- Land co-owned only by co-owners who are all unit owners of the building, so that the rule requiring unit-owning and non-unit-owning co-owners is not met.
- A partition that would not vest the land in the unit-owning co-owners, or that would not give the non-unit-owning co-owners the price of their shares.
- A case in which vesting the land in the unit-owning co-owners would harm substantive fairness between the co-owners, since the exception requires special circumstances to the contrary.
Record verification notes
Set the co-owner list for each land against the two groups the rule needs, unit owners and non-unit owners, and confirm that the partition proposed leaves the land with the unit-owning co-owners and pays the others the price of their shares. Gather what the record shows that this result does no substantive injustice between the co-owners, since the exception turns on that finding. Keep the unjust enrichment claim apart from the partition claim: it turns on exclusive use of Land 1 between 6 December 2016 and 10 April 2019 and on the shares, and the Court cited Articles 8 and 20 of the Condominium Act and Articles 268(1) and 269(1) of the Civil Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
집합건물의 대지에 관한 공유물분할 청구를 금지하는 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제8조의 입법 취지 / 집합건물의 대지에 관한 공유물분할 청구가 예외적으로 허용되는 경우
Unofficial English translation
The legislative purpose of Article 8 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, which prohibits a claim for partition of co-owned property concerning the site of a condominium building / Cases in which a claim for partition of co-owned property concerning the site of a condominium building is exceptionally permitted
Summary of the holding
집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률(이하 ‘집합건물법’이라고 한다) 제8조는 "대지 위에 구분소유권의 목적인 건물이 속하는 1동의 건물이 있을 때에는 그 대지의 공유자는 그 건물 사용에 필요한 범위의 대지에 대하여는 분할을 청구하지 못한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 위 법률 규정의 입법 취지는 1동의 건물로서 개개의 구성부분이 독립한 구분소유권의 대상이 되는 집합건물의 존립 기초를 확보하려는 데 있는바, 집합건물의 대지는 그 지상의 구분소유권과 일체성 내지 불가분성을 가지는데 일반의 공유와 같이 공유지분권에 기한 공유물분할을 인정한다면 그 집합건물의 대지사용관계는 파탄에 이르게 되므로 집합건물의 공동생활관계의 보호를 위하여 분할청구가 금지된다. 따라서 집합건물 대지의 공유자가 청구한 대지의 분할청구가 허용되는지 여부를 판단함에 있어서는 집합건물법 제8조의 입법 취지가 우선 고려되어야 하는바, 집합건물의 대지를 집합건물의 구분소유자인 공유자와 구분소유자가 아닌 공유자가 공유하고 있고, 당해 대지를 집합건물의 구분소유자인 공유자에게 취득시키고 구분소유자가 아닌 다른 공유자에게는 그 지분의 가격을 취득시키는 것이 공유자 간의 실질적인 공평을 해치지 않는다고 인정되는 특별한 사정이 있어 그와 같이 공유물을 분할하는 것이 허용되는 경우에는, 그러한 공유물에 대한 분할청구는 집합건물법 제8조의 입법 취지에 비추어 허용된다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고 1 및 피고 2의 승계인수인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the successors who assumed the final appeal of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.
Provisions referred to
집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률 제8조, 제20조, 민법 제268조 제1항, 제269조 제1항
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