(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2015. 01. 14. 선고 2014가단101187 판결건물에 대해서만 가등기를 하고 대지권에 대한 가처분을 하지않은 경우 건물의 가등기효력이 대지권에 미칠수 없음[국승]
Where a provisional registration is made only on a building and a provisional disposition is not made on a site right, the effect of a provisional registration of a building shall not affect a site right.
Where a provisional registration is made only on a building and a provisional disposition is not made on a right to a site, the effect of a provisional registration made on a section for exclusive use shall not affect a right to a site.
2014Ga group 101187 Implementation, etc. of procedures for registering site ownership
○ Kim
Republic of Korea and one other
November 12, 2014
January 14, 2015
1. On February 7, 2001, Defendant ○ Construction Co., Ltd. implemented the procedure for registration of change of a sectional ownership (mark of site right) as to the Plaintiff’s share 23.95 of 1627.2 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as to the Plaintiff’s share in the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as to
3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○ Construction Co., Ltd is assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively.
Cheong-gu Office
Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this Article, it shall be as stated in the attached Form.
1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;
2. A claim against Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.: A judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3) on March 3, 200; a claim against the Republic of Korea: The instant site ownership is publicly announced as owned by Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. by separate registration; and the Plaintiff merely made a provisional registration only on the instant building and did not take any provisional disposition on the site ownership, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the provisional registration against the instant building was effective merely because the Plaintiff did not take any provisional disposition on the site ownership. Thus, the allegations and evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○ Construction Co., Ltd. is reasonable, and the claim against the defendant ○○ City, and Korea is without merit.