beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.11.11 2015나5761

건물명도등

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) is referred to as “P shopping building” among the building indicated in the attached list located within N in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.

As a part of the building, it is registered as a sectional ownership of a building on the aggregate building ledger and P shopping district is registered as a sectional ownership of a building due to an injury to the registration of real estate. P shopping district is completed on October 30, 1958, and as a result of structural safety inspection conducted on May 2002, it was ordered by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Jung-gu Office to reinforce the existing building. Accordingly, the construction was conducted by changing the reinforced concrete structure of the building from the second to the fourth floor, the number of floors from the second to the fourth floor, and the extension was conducted. The Plaintiff 60835/6598944, the Plaintiff 1270/6598944, the Plaintiff 6083/659894, the Plaintiff 1680/659894, and the Plaintiff 16870/69894, and the Defendants 1/3 shares in each of the instant claims for the reimbursement of each of the shares in the P1st.

2. Determination

A. Under the premise that the store possessed by the Defendants is part of the instant building, the Plaintiffs asserted that the store possessed by the Defendants owns the divided ownership of the Defendants’ occupied part shop, and sought delivery of each occupied part of the store from the Defendants.

However, it is unclear whether the store possessed by the Defendants is part of the building of this case solely with the statement of No. 2 and the prior evidence, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs acquired the sectional ownership of the store of this case.

The above argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of preservation of the article jointly owned, the Plaintiffs are the stores possessed by the Defendants.