(a) Purport of Article 16 (1) (proviso) and (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Multi-Unit Residential Building and the contents and exercise of authority;

(b) Criteria for determining which part of an aggregate building is a common area;

A. The purport of the proviso of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act is to ensure that a sectional owner, who is a co-owner, can independently conduct the preservation to maintain the phenomenon of common areas of an aggregate building, unless otherwise specified by the regulations, by distinguishing it from the management act. The content of the preservation act is to say that not only the actual preservation act, such as the common relation, but also the sectional owner, who is the co-owner, can independently conduct it, including the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on the right to share and the right to claim the return of the

(b) Corridors, stairs and other sections of the building that lead to several sections of exclusive ownership in the aggregate building are provided for the common use of all or some of the sectional owners in the structure of the building, not for the sectional ownership, and whether some sections of the building are provided for the common use of all or some of the sectional owners shall be determined by the objective usage according to the structure of the building, unless otherwise agreed by the owners;

Articles 2, 3, 10, and 16 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da72, 86Meu396 Decided August 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1450). Supreme Court Decision 89Da1497 Decided October 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1782) Decision 92Da3151 Decided April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1685) (Gong1685) Decided March 9, 1993

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Attorneys Yellow-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 201

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na30555 delivered on December 30, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

On the first ground for appeal

Article 16 (1) (proviso) and (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provide that each co-owner may conduct the act of preserving common areas of an aggregate building unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations. The purport of the above provision is to distinguish the act of preserving common areas of an aggregate building from the act of managing it unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations, so that the co-owner, a co-owner, can conduct the act independently. The content of the act of preserving it is to say that the co-owner, a co-owner, including not only the act of preserving it, such as ordinary co-ownership but also the right to claim the exclusion from interference with the right to share and the right to claim the return of co-ownership. The above right of the co-owner's act of preserving the aggregate building can be exercised regardless of the appointment of a manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Da72, 86Meu396, Aug. 18, 197). Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of preserving of the plaintiffs's.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

Corridors, stairs, and other sections of a building that lead to several sections for exclusive use in an aggregate building are provided for the common use of all or some of sectional owners in the structure of the building, not the object of sectional ownership. Whether some sections of a building are provided for the common use of all or some of sectional owners shall be determined by the objective purpose according to the structure of the building, unless otherwise agreed by the special group among the owners (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1497 delivered on October 27, 1989).

The court below determined that the portion of the warehouse and factory of this case among the aggregate buildings of this case is used for the purpose of offices, sales facilities, banks, etc., and the underground floor is used for part of the warehouse and factory building of this case, but there is no real estate registration book indicating the ownership of a specific person, but only the building management ledger is registered in the name of the Seoul Trust Bank, which is the long-term sectional owner, and that the sectional owner or lessee paid management expenses according to the ratio of the unit area. The court below determined that the warehouse and factory office of this case were provided for the common use of the aggregate building of this case in order to increase the utility of the whole aggregate building of this case. According to the records, the apartment building of this case is composed of the 12th and underground floors, and the ground floor is used for the purpose of the warehouse, sales facilities, banks, etc. of this case, but most of the warehouses and factory rooms are used for the purpose of the parking lot, etc. of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the common use area of this case, and its surrounding common use facilities.

There is no reason for this issue.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion that the possession of the defendant was legitimate since the redevelopment association in this case, the owner of the building in this case, or the plaintiff's nonprofit or the owner of the building in this case permitted the defendant to use the warehouse in this case and the factory laboratory in this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's possession (it can be known that the defendant urged the defendant to use the warehouse in this case and the factory laboratory within a certain period and notified the defendant to collect the fees on the premise that the defendant would use the warehouse in this case without agreement with the management body and collect the fees on the basis that there is no evidence to prove that there was a resolution by the management body's resolution as to the use of the warehouse in this case). In addition, there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or any

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)