2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The defendant, as a housing construction project operator, is to promote the housing construction project in Gwangju Northern-gu (hereinafter referred to as "the site in this case"), and applied to the Minister of Construction and Transportation for approval of the construction project plan in accordance with Article 33 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and obtained approval of the first construction project plan in December 28, 190, and finally obtained approval of the modification on December 30, 1991 through several subsequent revisions.

(a) Total project site area: 72,961 square meters; and

(2) Construction facility content: A long-term rental apartment with a lot area of 5,060 square meters; a housing welfare facility; a housing welfare hall; a labor welfare hall; a post office; a Dong office; a fire station; a police station; a police station; a entrance room; a stadium; a playground; a children’s playground; a common storage room; a public telephone facility; a parking lot; a parking lot; etc. (hereinafter referred to as “one complex”); a permanent rental apartment with 1,640 square meters of a site area of 35,867 square meters; a social welfare center; a children’s playground; a playground; a playground; a playground; an underground water tank; a water reservoir; an underground water reservoir; an underground water pumping facility; a parking lot, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “2 complex”); a permanent rental apartment with a lot area of 35,867 square meters;

B. The Plaintiffs reported the Defendant’s first complex sale and long-term lease (in some unsold parcels, conversion to general sale), and won by applying for parcelling-out, and concluded a sales contract with the Defendant and each of the usual households sold in lots in around 1994 as set out by the Defendant in advance, or succeeded to the status of the buyer under the above sales contract with the consent of the Defendant from the initial general buyer or succeeded to the status of the buyer under the above sales contract with the agreement of the Defendant, and succeeded to the status of some of the buyers.

(1) 17.19 square meters of supplied area (41.85 square meters of exclusive use area, 14.98 square meters of public use area) and 31.71 square meters of public site area

(2) 17.27 square meters of the supplied area (41.85 square meters of the exclusive-use area, 15.26 square meters of the public-use area) and 31.71 square meters of the shared site area

(3) The supplied area of 20.54 square meters, 67.92 square meters (49.77 square meters for exclusive use, 18.15 square meters for public use), and 37.71 square meters for public land area.

(4) On the other hand, Article 3(2) of the sales contract provides that "where the area of the ownership transfer to the buyer is different from the area indicated in the contract, the corresponding amount shall be settled among the buyers."

C. After the completion of the above apartment house, the registration of ownership transfer was made on the part of the building on January 1, 1994. Meanwhile, the shares in the co-owned site became final and conclusive at the latest due to the lack of cadastral record adjustment, and the total area of the site under a survey is 67,951.7m2 at the latest, and on May 17, 1995 and May 24, 1995, the plaintiffs' apartment complex 1 complex was established on May 67, 95, Gwangju Metropolitan City, the area is 67,951.7m2, the supplied area is 31.71/71 of the site ratio of 67,951.7m2, the supplied area of 17.27m27m27m27, the area of the site was 67,951m27m27, the area of the site was 97m274m27, the area of the site to be supplied was 157m27/167m27.7m27.7.7m2.

D. At present, among apartment complexes of this case 1 and 2 complexes of this case, there are two complexes on the right side and one complex is located on the left side from the entrance side of the road. Within one complex, two shops are sold to an individual as commercial facilities. There are five commercial buildings owned by the defendant, such as sewage purification facilities, management dong, underground water storage tank (supply facilities), residents' sports facilities, and five children's playgrounds. Within two complexes, there are two commercial buildings owned by the defendant, and the above commercial buildings are located within 20 shops. Within two complexes, there are two complexes, such as sewage purification facilities, welfare pipes, underground water storage tanks, five children's sports facilities, children's playgrounds, and four children's playgrounds. The area of the site of this case is 384 square meters based on the size of the site of this case and 384 square meters based on the size of the site of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), the result of the survey and appraisal by the appraiser Nonparty, the result of the on-site verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

(a) A captain;

1. The 1.2 complex was divided by the Defendant to obtain approval of a project plan by dividing the site area by complex, the 1.2 complex is divided by sale in lots and long-term rental apartment, and the 2.2 complex is divided by permanent rental apartment, and all facilities including management offices including the instant road are independent of each other, and the 1.2 complex is directly managed by the Defendant. Therefore, the 1.2 complex and 2 complex are divided by the two separate apartment complexes based on the center line of the instant road. Therefore, the 2.1 complex and 2 complex are divided into separate apartment complexes based on the central line of the instant road. However, the actual site area of the 1 complex owned by the Plaintiffs is more than 2,421.38 square meters (35,486.28 square meters of the site area of the 35,486.28 square meters of the site area of the instant road on the basis of the central line of the instant road.

(b) Agency:

(1) Unlike the sales contract, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages due to the shortage of the plaintiffs' co-owned site because the defendant intentionally or negligently sold apartment buildings that fall short of the actual co-owned site area and caused the default or tort. (2) Whether the area of the co-owned site area on the registry can be actually used is an important part of the contract. Since the defendant failed to notify this, the plaintiffs cancelled the contract on the part of the co-owned site area that is in excess of the actual amount due to deception or mistake, and also partly cancelled the contract on the ground of the non-performance of the contract. (3) According to the sales contract, the defendant is liable to recover the amount corresponding to the above portion as unjust enrichment in case of the difference in the area of the contract.

3. Determination

The building site means the land of one building to which the section for exclusive use belongs (see Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act). The whole land of one building should be the site of the building even in cases where the building is located on part of the land of one building. The defendant newly constructed an apartment house with approval for the housing construction plan to build a single apartment complex by constructing an apartment on the entire one of the land of this case, and is located on the land of this case. The whole area of the building site of 1,2 complex is reduced to 67,951.7 square meters when registering the site after completion of the construction. However, in order to guarantee the share of the site in the sale contract for the apartment unit, it is difficult for the defendant to view that the building of 1 complex is located on the whole part of the building site of this case, and the plaintiffs' right to use the building of 2 complex is different from that of the building site of this case from that of the building site of this case. The plaintiffs' right to use the apartment complex of this case can not be dividedly owned on the building site of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that the shares of housing site per household reach only one complex on the basis of the central line of the road of this case are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong-jin (Presiding Judge)