[소유권이전등기][공1989.12.15.(862),1744]
Effect of registration of ownership preservation for the section for common use of the building
The registration of ownership preservation for the section for common use of a building was conducted only for the portion without the ability to register under the Registration of Real Estate Act, which was enforced at the time of the registration of ownership preservation for the section for common use of a building.
Articles 3 and 10 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act; Article 16 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 3726 of Apr. 10, 1984); Article 186 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)
Daegu High Court Decision 86Na905 delivered on March 31, 1988
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
1. As to Defendant 1’s attorney’s grounds of appeal
In full view of the evidence cited by the court below, it is justified that the contract of this case was concluded between the non-party 1 who represented the plaintiffs and the defendant, and it cannot be viewed that there was any error of mistake of facts or lack of reason due to violation of the evidence law, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the court below did not err in rejecting the assertion of unfair conduct. Therefore, all of the
2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 by the attorney:
(1) Based on the evidence cited by the court below, Defendant 1, the representative of the above-mentioned market promotion committee, was built on the 1st century and the 4th floor above the above 5th floor and was divided into the 10th floor and then the 15th floor below was further divided into the 4th floor, and the 1,56th floor and the 10th unit size of the above 4th unit were divided into the 17th unit, and the 1,56th unit and the 10th unit size of the 4th unit were not the 1,66th unit, and the 4th unit were not the 15th unit size of the above 4th unit and the 15th unit size of the building were not the 2,3,47,8 and 9th unit were the 164th unit size of the above 17th unit and the 15th unit size were not the 5th unit size of the building.
(2) According to the records, it is natural that the court below did not render a judgment on the ground that it cannot be deemed that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 asserted the abuse of rights, such as theory, on the preparatory documents or the date of pleading submitted by them.
The discussion on this issue is groundless.
3. Therefore, the defendants' arguments are without merit and all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)