logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.23 2018나50399
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and ancillary costs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Suwon-si D shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) was registered as an aggregate building by its interior store as a sectioned, and at the time of opening on August 2001, there was a floor boundary mark, partitions, walls, building number signs, etc. in line with the sectional ownership of buyers.

B. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to No. 106 of the third floor among the instant commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant store”) with the Suwon District Court, the Dongwon Registry, No. 108385, Jul. 19, 2001.

C. However, from August 15, 2002 to March 3, 2002 without the consent of the entire sectional owners of the instant commercial buildings, the representative F of E, who acquired the right to manage and lease the instant commercial buildings, removed the existing partitions from around August 15, 2002 to install a mixed water tank, and installed a mixed water tank, and the 4,5th, above the ground, and the 5th, removed all inside facilities, such as partitions, ceiling, floor, and toilets, and installed a rain or facility in the entire area.

The second and third floors of the instant commercial building, including the instant store, were used from July 8, 2008 to April 30, 2012 as the mutual wedding hall of “G” (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 10

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant commercial building is a sectioned building, thereby losing its structural independence, the Plaintiff acquired co-ownership shares in the entire third floor of the instant commercial building.

(Public land portion is 1.0047/2,297/2,00 of the share of the right to a site. However, from July 8, 2008 to April 30, 2012, Defendant B had no right of possession from July 8, 2008 to December 31, 2009, and the Selection C had no right of possession from July 8, 2008 to December 31, 2009 to the 2 and 3rd floor of this case.

arrow