[소유권확인][공1991.4.15.(894),1076]
In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the ownership of the Plaintiff on the ground that a part of the building was partly awarded a successful bid, whether there is no dispute between the parties as to the ownership of a part of the building, and if there is a dispute only for the remaining part, whether the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership of the non-contentious part is appropriate (negative)
A lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of rights or legal relations is deemed to have no interest in confirmation as to the part in which there is no dispute between the parties among the subject matter of confirmation. Therefore, in the case where a claim for confirmation of ownership is made on the ground of successful bid for the whole of the shops in the south part of the building which was registered as an apartment of bond 1 but is divided into a management office, which is the north side building, and a store which is the south side of the building, the middle wall installed with an intermediate wall and the building which is in fact divided into a management office, and a store which is the south side of the building, there is no dispute between the parties that there is ownership for the remaining part of the middle wall excluding the corridor and the change part, but there is no interest in seeking confirmation of ownership for the remaining part of the above part of the building
Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act
Round
Hanman Apartment Apartment Management Committee (Attorney Lee Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu District Court Decision 89Na3074 delivered on October 10, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to No. 1:
In a lawsuit for confirmation of existence or absence of rights or legal relations, there is no interest in confirmation as to the part without dispute between the parties among the objects of confirmation. Therefore, although the apartment house of this case was registered as a 1 bond apartment, in fact, it was divided into the management office and the store outside the boundary, which is the north side of the boundary, and since the plaintiff acquired a successful bid by specifying the store outside the boundary of the hallway and the change part, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for confirmation of ownership as to the whole of the store outside the boundary of the above hallway and the change part including the above hallway and the change part, even though following the above argument, the court below did not dispute against the defendant as to the fact that the remaining part of the middle wall of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and even in the lawsuit of this case, the defendant does not dispute about the ownership of the above hallway and change part, and it does not dispute about the remaining part, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the profits of the remaining part of the plaintiff's store.
With respect to the second ground:
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above corridor and defense part asserted by the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the plaintiff's own ownership even in light of the structure, construction purpose, use and actual use relation of the apartment of this case, which are acknowledged by the evidence, even though there is no evidence to admit that the above corridor and defense part as the plaintiff's ownership are the plaintiff's ownership. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence,
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)