건물명도(인도)
1. Of the fourth floor of the building listed in the attached list, the Defendant indicated in the attached list to the Plaintiff in the attached list, each of the following three categories: 3, 4, c, 8, 9, b, 11, 12, and 3 of the attached drawings.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner holding 4th floor C, 5th floor D, E, F, etc. of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant is a sectional owner holding 4th floor G, H, I, etc. of the instant building.
B. The Defendant occupies one square meter (hereinafter referred to as the “instant space”) in part (c) of a ship (hereinafter referred to as “instant space”) connected in the order of each point of 20 square meters on the part (B) part of the attached drawing, such as 3, 4, c, 8, 9, b, 11, 12, and 3, which are attached to the section for common use among the fourth floor of the instant building, which are connected in the order of each point of 20 square meters.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 6, and 9 (including virtual numbers) and images, appraiser J's appraisal results, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Article 16(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”) provides that “The matters concerning the management of the section for common use shall be determined by a resolution at an ordinary meeting,” and the proviso provides that “The preservation may be done by each co-owner.”
The purpose of Article 16 (1) of the Multi-unit Building Act is to maintain the phenomenon of common use areas of a multi-unit building is to distinguish it from the management act so that the owner of the partitioned ownership, who is the co-owner, can independently carry out the preservation act, including not only the actual preservation act like the common ownership but also the right to demand the exclusion of interference based on the right to share, and the right of the co-owner to act
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da12163, Apr. 28, 2011). The instant space occupied and used by the Defendant constitutes the common area provided for the common use by all sectional owners of the instant building, as seen earlier. As such, the Defendant is justifiable for the said space.