beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.11 2019나55248

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the Defendants added a new judgment as to this case’s assertion to this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The 1st floor of the instant building asserted by the Defendants is only the ownership of the 1st floor, which is not the sectional ownership of 46 stores, as a single space. Thus, each passage of the instant case asserted by the Plaintiffs is separated from the store and cannot be deemed to exist independently.

B. According to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-2, the judgment of the court below that held that each of the above 46 stores can not be the object of sectional ownership because all of the first floor of the building of this case merely becomes the object of sectional ownership, and each of the 46 stores located within the above 46 stores cannot be the object of sectional ownership."

However, this means that 46 stores of the first floor are newly constructed and sold in open market (open commercial buildings with no entrance and exit walls) at the time of the new construction and sale of the building of this case as stated in the construction completion drawing (No. 24-1) and only 46 stores cannot be the objects of separate sectional ownership, and therefore, the registration of ownership transfer for each co-ownership of 46 stores after the completion of registration of ownership preservation for all the first floor is completed. Thus, the existence of each passage of this case, which exists independently, is not denied.

On a different premise, the defendants' above assertion is without merit without examining any further.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case should be accepted as reasonable.