[2] The case holding that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles that the use of the parking lot based on the right to use the site of the apartment building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building

[3] The degree of clarity to have the text of the judgment

[4] The case holding that the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, in a case where: (a) the owner of a commercial building sought a prohibition of parking obstruction against the residents' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' participation in each part of the apartment building and the commercial building constructed on several lots of land; (b) the court below partially accepted the part of the claim for prohibition of interference with parking; (c) stated in the attached Form, which is part of the order, that "parking parking in the complex may be conducted within the scope of parking surface; and (d) in principle, if there is no empty parking lot, it is inevitable to park in the complex; and (e) a vehicle without a verification stick is allowed to stop for a limited period of time, but

[2] The case holding that in case where a person holding a commercial building owner Gap filed a claim against the council of occupants' representatives for the prohibition of interference with parking, etc. against the residents' representatives while the registration of a part of the co-ownership share of the entire site was completed with respect to each apartment building and each partitioned building constructed on several lots of land, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to use the site by the sectional owner, on the premise that Gap cannot exercise the right to use the site without limitation, even if he has the right to use the entire site, regardless of his co-ownership share as to the site, unless there are special circumstances such as the existence of separate regulations, etc., and Gap has the right to use the site, and under such right to use the site, he has the right to use the land in the parking lot designated on the basis of the right to use the site of Gap's right to use the site, under the premise that Gap cannot exercise the right to use the site without limitation.

[3] If the contents of the text of the judgment are ambiguous, the objective scope of res judicata is unclear, as well as the contents such as executory power and formation power are uncertain, and there is a risk of causing a new dispute, the scope of accepting and rejecting the claim should be clearly specified in the text of the judgment.

[4] The case holding that the judgment of the court below, in principle, can only be parked within the parking lot on the ground that "the defendant shall not interfere with entry, passage, and parking in the apartment complex complex in accordance with the criteria as stated in the attached Form 2, on the ground that "the vehicle employed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's employee and the plaintiff's employee shall not interfere with entry, passage, and parking in the parking lot in the apartment complex" in the attached Form 2 of the judgment of the court below can be parked within the parking lot on the ground that the plaintiff designated two lots on the basis of passenger cars and passenger cars, and the parking in the apartment lot can only be parked within the scope of the number of parking spaces, and it is inevitable to allow a temporary parking lot, but the parking vehicle cannot be permitted, and the part of the parking lot can not be seen as an "the parking lot or parking lot" in the attached Form 2 of the judgment of the court below without clearly stating the reasons for the exception of "the parking lot or parking lot" in the attached Form 3 of the judgment of the court below.

In a case where the sectional owners of one building co-ownership the site of the building, each sectional owner has a legitimate right to use the whole site of the building according to the purpose of use, irrespective of the share of co-ownership in the site, barring special circumstances such as the existence of separate regulations. This legal doctrine applies likewise to a case where the sectional owners of several buildings constructed on one parcel of land or several lots of land co-ownership of the land (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da60144, Mar. 14, 1995, etc.).

After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, the court below determined that it is reasonable to view that the two vehicles designated based on the Plaintiff’s right to use the instant parking lot, based on the Plaintiff’s right to use the site, are issued with parking lots, and that the Plaintiff’s restriction on the use of the instant parking lot, based on the Plaintiff’s right to use the site, shall be limited to the extent of infringing the Plaintiff’s right to use the site, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to use the site without limitation, and that the two vehicles designated based on the Plaintiff’s right to use the site, based on the passenger car and the passenger car, are issued with parking lots and the remaining vehicles shall be permitted to pass, enter, stop, and stop with the visiting vehicle in accordance with the rules on the operation of the parking lot.

In addition, the court below determined the consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, considering all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant, the purpose, circumstance, frequency, etc. of parking obstruction, since the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's entry, passage, and parking of the parking lot of this case beyond the plaintiff's tolerance limit.

However, examining the records in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff has legitimate authority to use the entire site for the purpose of use, regardless of the share of co-ownership on the instant site, barring special circumstances, such as the existence of separate regulations, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to pass, enter, and stop the instant parking lot, which is part of the instant building site, based on such right to use the site.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s use of the instant parking lot based on the right to use site should be limited to the extent as indicated in its reasoning, and determined consolation money based on such determination, etc. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the right to use site by sectional owners, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of its judgment by misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the right to use site and

2. It shall be deemed ex officio.

If the contents of the text of the judgment are ambiguous, not only the objective scope of res judicata is unclear, but also the contents of executory power, formation power, etc. are uncertain, which may cause a new dispute, the scope of accepting and rejecting the claim should be clearly specified in the text of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du8334, Sept. 28, 2006, etc.).

However, the judgment of the court below as to the part of the claim for prohibition of interference in this case shall be cited as follows: "The defendant shall not interfere with the entry, passage, and parking of the vehicles used by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's employees and occupying assistants into the parking lot in the modern apartment complex located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, in accordance with the criteria stated in the attached Form." The attached "Standards for parking and stopping" of the judgment of the court below shall state that "the plaintiff shall designate two motor vehicles on the basis of passenger cars and boarding cars (if it is possible to park in one parking lot as a single parking lot, only if it is possible to park in the first parking lot, it shall be treated equally with boarding and boarding cars) and park in the apartment parking lot with the defendant. The parking lot in the apartment vehicle can only be parked within the scope of the number of pages, and if there is no empty parking lot, it shall be allowed to temporarily stop a vehicle, but it may not be permitted to temporarily stop, but the occupant may stop after giving priority to parking and stopping."

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the part of the judgment of the court below, which is a part of the judgment of the court below, “the criteria for parking and stopping,” which is “in principle, parking should be inevitable in addition to the absence of an empty parking,” does not clearly state the text and reasons of the judgment of the court below, and the part of “the temporary stopping”, which is “the part of the judgment of the court below, does not clearly state its meaning in the text of the judgment of the court below, and its meaning cannot be clearly

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is because it fails to meet the clarity to be equipped as a judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)