Whether the shares of section for exclusive use and section for common use are combined even before the implementation of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act (affirmative)

Even before the implementation of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, shares in common areas of an aggregate building are naturally transferred in relation to the indivisible relationship if the relevant partitioned ownership is transferred.

Articles 3 and 13 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 215 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Seoul Comprehensive Law Firm, Attorneys Kang Hong-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed Party-appellant)

Daeil Construction Co., Ltd. (Dongyang Integrated Law Firm, Attorneys Maximum Mine- Rate et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na13703, 13710 delivered on May 3, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party, plaintiff hereinafter only) (the supplemental appellate brief submitted by the plaintiff et al. is considered to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal).

In light of the records, we affirm the court below's decision that the court below recognized that the 6th floor telephone exchange room 20.22, 7th floor, 2.54, 8th floor cleaning room 8.88 square meters, etc. was left as owned by the defendant by being excluded from the sale to the occupants for use in the management of the building of this case, and there is no error in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to common areas of multi-family housing, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The assertion that the court below asserted the 6th floor telephone exchange room 20.22, 7th floor, 2.54, and 8.8 square meters, etc.,

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to the contract of the apartment sale (A) of this case, the common area of the building of this case can be recognized as the co-ownership by all sectional owners. And if the common area of this case is transferred, the ownership of the common area of this case is naturally transferred in relation to this indivisible interest (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da1244 delivered on April 27, 1976).

Examining the above legal principles and various evidences adopted by the court below, in light of the above legal principles and the above (A) contract, 831.46 of apartment stairs, corridor, elevator room, brick passage, waste passage, and pipe duct as stated in the judgment of the court below are common areas of the apartment of this case. The above common areas are sold together with each section of exclusive ownership at the time of the initial sale with the buyer and the first buyer, and the above common areas are transferred in sequence to the plaintiff et al. after the first buyer, it is just and acceptable that the above apartment belongs to the co-ownership of the plaintiff et al. who is the owner of the above apartment, and there is no error of misconception of facts or incomplete hearing due to violation of the rules of evidence

In addition, the court below acknowledged the above apartment common area as co-ownership by the plaintiff et al. not based on the actual presumption, but based on the facts and legal principles admitted as evidence, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the actual presumption or the reversal thereof as alleged in the

In conclusion, the assertion is not acceptable, since the court below's determination is a tree, which is ultimately a dispute over the admission of evidence and fact belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or is different from the original court's opinion.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)