Relationship between Land Use Rights and Unjust Enrichment: Supreme Court Decision of Aug. 25, 2022(2017 DA 257067) in a Perspective of the En Banc Judgement of the Supreme Court Decision of Nov. 28, 2019(2017 DA 294608)

Seungkyu Mo, Jewan Kim
{"title":"Relationship between Land Use Rights and Unjust Enrichment: Supreme Court Decision of Aug. 25, 2022(2017 DA 257067) in a Perspective of the En Banc Judgement of the Supreme Court Decision of Nov. 28, 2019(2017 DA 294608)","authors":"Seungkyu Mo, Jewan Kim","doi":"10.55029/kabl.2023.48.81","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on August 25, 2022(2017 DA 257067), the general legal principles regarding shared property in civil law cannot be directly applied to the “shared relationship” of collective building land. Therefore, co-owners of divided land, who hold a reasonable share corresponding to the ratio of exclusive parts in the collective building, have a legal authority to use and profit from the entire land according to its intended purpose. As a result, a land co-owner who is not a divided land owner cannot claim unjust enrichment against a divided land owner with a reasonable share based on the land co-owner's share rights. The conclusion of this unanimous decision by the Supreme Court emphasizes the obligation of unjust enrichment for divided landowners based on two factors: (1) the emphasis on the substantive use relationship of land use rights and (2) the economic viability of this conclusion. This perspective appears reasonable. The Supreme Court’s viewpoint, as presented in the unanimous decision, assumes the “shared relationship,” which is the typical ownership structure of land use rights in collective buildings. However, it is necessary to examine whether there is a change in legal relationships in cases where non-co-owners divide and separately (or jointly) own rights such as ownership of part of the land, apart from the shared relationship. The focus of this paper, the Supreme Court’s decision on November 28, 2019(2017 DA 294608), addresses issues related to unjust enrichment concerning land use rights when a single collective building is situated on multiple separate lots. While acknowledging the legal and economic validity of the unanimous decision, this paper critically analyzes the decision on the obligation of unjust enrichment. It suggests the need for legislative measures to clarify and advance future judgements or legal relationships regarding unjust enrichment in land-use relationships.","PeriodicalId":399431,"journal":{"name":"Korean Institute for Aggregate Buildings Law","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Institute for Aggregate Buildings Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55029/kabl.2023.48.81","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision on August 25, 2022(2017 DA 257067), the general legal principles regarding shared property in civil law cannot be directly applied to the “shared relationship” of collective building land. Therefore, co-owners of divided land, who hold a reasonable share corresponding to the ratio of exclusive parts in the collective building, have a legal authority to use and profit from the entire land according to its intended purpose. As a result, a land co-owner who is not a divided land owner cannot claim unjust enrichment against a divided land owner with a reasonable share based on the land co-owner's share rights. The conclusion of this unanimous decision by the Supreme Court emphasizes the obligation of unjust enrichment for divided landowners based on two factors: (1) the emphasis on the substantive use relationship of land use rights and (2) the economic viability of this conclusion. This perspective appears reasonable. The Supreme Court’s viewpoint, as presented in the unanimous decision, assumes the “shared relationship,” which is the typical ownership structure of land use rights in collective buildings. However, it is necessary to examine whether there is a change in legal relationships in cases where non-co-owners divide and separately (or jointly) own rights such as ownership of part of the land, apart from the shared relationship. The focus of this paper, the Supreme Court’s decision on November 28, 2019(2017 DA 294608), addresses issues related to unjust enrichment concerning land use rights when a single collective building is situated on multiple separate lots. While acknowledging the legal and economic validity of the unanimous decision, this paper critically analyzes the decision on the obligation of unjust enrichment. It suggests the need for legislative measures to clarify and advance future judgements or legal relationships regarding unjust enrichment in land-use relationships.
土地使用权与不当得利之间的关系:从最高法院2019年11月28日的全体法官判决(2017 DA 294608)看最高法院2022年8月25日的判决(2017 DA 257067)
根据最高法院 2022 年 8 月 25 日的一致裁决(2017 DA 257067),民法中关于共有财产的一般法律原则不能直接适用于集体建设用地的 "共有关系"。因此,分割土地的共有人持有与集体建设用地专有部分比例相对应的合理份额,依法有权按照预期用途使用整块土地并从中获利。因此,不属于分割土地所有人的土地共有人不能根据土地共有人的份额权,向拥有合理份额的分割土地所有人主张不当得利。最高法院的这一一致裁决的结论基于两个因素强调了分割土地所有人的不当得利义务:(1) 强调土地使用权的实质性使用关系;(2) 这一结论的经济可行性。这种观点似乎是合理的。 最高法院在一致裁决中提出的观点假定了 "共有关系",这是集体建筑物中土地使用权的典型所有权结构。但是,有必要研究在非共有人分割并单独(或共同)拥有部分土地所有权等权利的情况下,除共有关系外,法律关系是否会发生变化。 本文的重点,即最高法院于 2019 年 11 月 28 日做出的判决(2017 DA 294608),解决了当一栋集体建筑位于多个独立地块上时,与土地使用权相关的不当得利问题。在承认一致裁决的法律和经济有效性的同时,本文对裁决中的不当得利义务进行了批判性分析。本文建议有必要采取立法措施,以澄清和推进未来有关土地使用关系中不当得利的判决或法律关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信