2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(In addition to the initial primary claim, the plaintiff filed a claim for confirmation of the fact that the real estate stated in the attached Form 1 is the exclusive use area of the plaintiff, but the above part of the claim for confirmation was modified by the trial court as the preliminary claim No. 1 and 2)

A. The Plaintiff is an owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 28, 2006 with respect to the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted), apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Plaintiff is using the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant greenhouse”), which is in contact with the instant apartment (water omitted), for residential purpose.

B. The Government Employees Pension Corporation, the Housing Association, and the Mapo-gu Staff Housing Association (hereinafter “Collective Housing Association”) jointly implemented the instant apartment construction project and completed the instant apartment construction project on February 1, 1986. The instant apartment building was built with 12 floors from Ra to 9Ra, and the last 10 Ra was built with 8 floors. The initial purpose of the instant apartment building was to construct the entire Ra as 12 floors, but as the right of sunshine problems occurred, the apartment building was built with 10 Ra,00 in order to obtain approval from the competent authorities, and was built with a sloping roof. Accordingly, the instant greenhouse was built.

C. On February 1, 1986, the Government Employees Pension Corporation and 14, all members of the housing association of Mapo-gu Office (hereinafter “the general assembly of this case”) approved a unanimous resolution with respect to the agenda that “as the greenhouse room of this case is practically impossible to be jointly managed, the neighboring owners, non-party 1, who are the non-party 1, recognize the ownership as a condition that the construction cost of the 116 households of this case bears 10 million won as part of the construction cost of the Green Gain voting for the 116 households of this case.”

D. A multi-family housing cooperative, upon obtaining approval for the use of the apartment of this case on March 11, 1986, went through the registration procedure for the preservation of ownership for each household around April 30, 1986. As to the greenhouse of this case, the registration was not completed separately in the registration of section for exclusive use or title with respect to the section for common use of the apartment of this case. The ratio of shares in each household to the section for common use of the apartment of this case is as indicated in the attached Table 2. Meanwhile, from April 30, 1986, Nonparty 1 started to move in the registration of the preservation of ownership for the apartment of this case from around April 30, 1986, while occupying

E. On October 7, 1997, Nonparty 1 sold the instant apartment (water omitted) and the instant greenhouse to Nonparty 2, and thereafter, Nonparty 2 sold the instant apartment (water omitted) and the instant greenhouse to Nonparty 3, Nonparty 3 to Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 4 sold the instant apartment (water omitted) and the instant greenhouse to the Plaintiff in sequence. Nonparty 1 sold the instant apartment (water omitted) and the ownership transfer registration was made only with respect to the instant apartment (water omitted) and there was no registration on ownership change with respect to the greenhouse of this case.

F. From December 2006 to the date of the closing of argument in the trial of the party, the current status of each owner of the instant Aionion as indicated in the attached Table 3’s “transfer of ownership”, and the person to whom the ownership of each household was transferred was succeeded to or participated in the process of the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including each number), testimony of non-party 1 as a witness of the trial court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Under the premise that the greenhouse of this case is independent in structure and use, and that the section for common use independent in structure and use is subject to acquisition by prescription, the Plaintiff seeks implementation of each of the co-ownership transfer procedures against the Defendants and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenors regarding the greenhouse of this case against the Defendants (excluding the succeeding intervenors; hereinafter the same shall apply) who are the other sectional owners of the apartment of this case and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenors, on the ground that the period of prescription for acquisition by possession has expired by possessing the greenhouse of this case independently for at least 20 years, as the owner of the apartment of this case (water omitted).

B. Whether the section for common use is subject to prescriptive acquisition

Article 1 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 9172, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), Article 2 subparagraphs 1 and 3 of the same Act can be used as an independent building. Each part of the building may be the object of ownership under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings if it is possible to be used as an independent building. Each part of the building, which is the object of divided ownership, may be divided ownership, and Article 13 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that each part of the building, which is the object of divided ownership, may be disposed of as part of the exclusive ownership, separate from the disposal of the exclusive ownership, and can not be disposed of as part of the exclusive ownership. In light of the purport of the Act, only the portion of the exclusive ownership, which is the exclusive ownership, can be defined as the object of sectional ownership under the premise that the exclusive ownership can be established as one of the objects of divided ownership, as well as the purport of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

The greenhouse of this case constitutes the section for common use. The plaintiff's assertion that the greenhouse of this case, which is the section for common use, was acquired by prescription is not acceptable as it differs from this premise.

C. Whether the greenhouse of this case has the nature of the section for exclusive use

Even if the section for common use, which is recognized as independent in structure and use of an aggregate building as alleged by the Plaintiff, is subject to the acquisition of ownership by prescription, the greenhouse of this case cannot be deemed independent in structure and use as follows. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

The issue of which part of the building is provided to the common use of the owner of the apartment building should be determined by the objective purpose according to the structure of the apartment building unless there is an agreement among the owners (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da9269, Feb. 28, 1995, etc.). According to the above acknowledged facts and evidence, there is no real estate register showing that the apartment building in this case is owned by a specific person. (2) The apartment building in this case is located on the rooftop of 10Ra, and it is not planned to construct the apartment building in this case. (3) The apartment building in this case was constructed as a common use space of the apartment building in the form of the apartment building in which the apartment building in this case was not remodeled for residence, and the apartment building in this case is not constructed separately from the apartment building in the form of the apartment building in this case. (4) The apartment building in this case, which has been constructed as a residential building in the height of the apartment building in this case, can not be seen as a different form of the apartment building in this case.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the greenhouse of this case was acquired by prescription is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, at the general meeting of this case, resolved to grant Nonparty 1 the right of ownership, i.e., use, profit-making, and disposal of the greenhouse of this case, and the Plaintiff asserts that Nonparty 1 was transferred the ownership of the greenhouse of this case which Nonparty 1 acquired upon the request from Nonparty 1 through the former owner (the first preliminary claim). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the resolution of the general meeting of this case cannot be deemed as granting Nonparty 1 the right of disposal of the greenhouse of this case, the Plaintiff acquired the right of use and profit-making of the greenhouse of this case granted to Nonparty 1 (the second preliminary claim).

B. Effect of the resolution of the general assembly of this case

(1) Whether the greenhouse of this case is changed to the section for exclusive use

In order to regard a part of a building which is the object of sectional ownership as a section for exclusive use, the said section of the building must be independent of other parts in structure or use. On the other hand, in order to change the section for common use of the sectional ownership to the section for exclusive use, the resolution of the sectional owners pursuant to Article 15 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and the approval of the sectional owners who are specially affected by the change of the section for common use pursuant to Article 15 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (Supreme Court Decision 92Da3151 delivered on April 24, 192). In addition, if the section for common use is changed to the section for exclusive use and belongs to a third party’s sectional ownership, it results in the disposal of the entire co-ownership of the sectional owners as to the relevant section for exclusive use, and thus, the consent of all sectional owners should be more than

Even if the general assembly of this case adopted a resolution that recognizes the ownership of the greenhouse of this case to Nonparty 1, the approval for use of the apartment of this case was made, and the sectional owners established sectional ownership relation to the apartment of this case that should be around April 30, 1986 after the registration of ownership preservation was completed for the apartment of this case, and the management body composed of all sectional owners, and the above management body can pass a resolution at the meeting. In light of the purport of the provisions of the Aggregate Buildings Act that allowed the change of common area to be decided at the meeting of 3/4 or more sectional owners, the resolution of the whole association members of the housing association which is the main body of implementing the apartment of this case before the establishment of sectional ownership relation cannot be seen as a legitimate resolution to change the greenhouse of this case to the common area of this case. On the contrary, if the main body such as the reconstruction association before the new construction of the aggregate building is deemed to have changed to the common area of this case in the way of the resolution of the association members, and further the altered common area can not be seen as an independent resolution of this case, even if it did not exercise voting rights.

Whether to grant the right to use and benefit from the greenhouse of this case

Articles 14 and 16 of the Aggregate Buildings Act provide that matters concerning the management of the section for common use shall be determined by the resolution of a general meeting of all sectional owners among the matters concerning the management of the section for common use provided only to the public use by some sectional owners. Since the greenhouse of this case shall be deemed to have been provided to the whole utility of the apartment of this case, matters concerning its management shall be determined by the resolution of a general meeting composed of all sectional owners. With regard to the greenhouse of this case, the approval of exclusive right to use and benefit constitutes the matters to be decided by the management body consisting of the entire sectional owners, as determined by the management method of the section for common use. Meanwhile, in light of the purport of the Aggregate Buildings Act which provides that the management of the section for common use should be decided by the resolution of all sectional owners, the exclusive right to use and benefit to the section for common use can be determined by the resolution of the general meeting of the members of this case after the establishment of the sectional ownership cannot be deemed to have been changed, and the exclusive right to use the section for common use cannot be deemed to have been established after the resolution of the general meeting of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the resolution of the general meeting of this case grants to Nonparty 1 the right to use, benefit, or ownership (use, profit, or disposal right) of the greenhouse of this case, and each conjunctive claim that the plaintiff succeeded to and acquired by succession is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim and each conjunctive claim are all dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance on the main claim is just, and each conjunctive claim that has been altered for exchange in the plaintiff's appeal and the trial on the appeal and the trial on the appeal and the trial on the appeal are all dismissed as they are without merit (the part of the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of the former claim against the greenhouse in this case was withdrawn from the exchange change in the trial and becomes null and void). It is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong-su (Presiding Judge)