[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee] The Association of Korea Telecommunications (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Jin-law, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 15, 2011

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap72941 Decided June 14, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim is that the defendants perform the procedure to change the name of the owner of the defendants in the report on extension, etc. stated in the attached Form and the report completion certificate to the plaintiff.

The purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

This court's explanation is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the second 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance, "as a co-owner of each 1/3 co-ownership" in the second 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance as " as " as to the case". Thus, this court's explanation

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

(1) In this case, the Plaintiff is seeking implementation of the procedure for changing the Defendants’ owner’ name on the report on extension, etc. and the report completion certificate to the Plaintiff, only three of the three of the registered owners of the building report.

(2) Even if an agreement on the transfer of part of the section or share to a person who is not the owner in the name of the building is valid in the extension of the building, the building report is given to one building (Articles 11, 14, and 2(1)2 of the Building Act). Since the nature of the building report cannot be divided into sections for exclusive use or share due to the nature of the building report, in principle, the transferee of part of the section or share of the building can not register the preservation of ownership under his/her name after the completion of the construction report, he/she shall be added to the joint owner of the building according to the report on the change of construction person under Article 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act before the use of the building is approved, and at the time of application for the use, Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act [Attachment 17] of the Building Act [Attachment 17] shall be registered by the transferee as the owner in the management register of the aggregate building to be prepared after the use is divided by the owner of the section for exclusive use.

(3) Meanwhile, in a case where the report on extension, etc. and the report completion certificate are jointly owned by a joint owner, the joint owner is quasi-joint owner of the right to the report on the construction to an administrative agency (in this case, it is not related to whether the joint owner owns the building or whether the joint owner owns the building). In order for the transferee to change the name of the joint owner to have been added, the joint owner of the extended building to have the transferee added the name of the joint owner, all the joint owner shall be the defendant and the administrative agency shall be the defendant for the performance of the duty to cooperate in the change of name. Such a lawsuit concerning quasi-joint ownership shall be the defendant (see Articles 278, 272, 273(1) of the Civil Act, and all the joint owner shall be the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da12060, Jul. 13, 1993

(4) As to the instant case, Nonparty 1 and the Defendants asserted that the instant extension was combined with the Defendants, and asserted the validity of the instant sales contract against the Plaintiff. As long as the Plaintiff added the Plaintiff as a joint owner of the entire extension or explicitly opposed to the change of the Defendants’ name to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should seek implementation of the procedure for changing the Defendants and Nonparty 1, who were joint building reporters on the report on extension, etc. and the report completion certificate, as co-defendants, as co-defendants, to add the Plaintiff to the joint owner of the entire extension.

(5) Therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking the implementation of the procedure to change the Defendants’ owner’ name on the report on extension, etc. and the report on completion of report as a joint construction reporter on the report on extension, etc. and the report completion certificate, except for Nonparty 1 disputing the legal status of the Plaintiff, among the co-litigants, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is unfair to dismiss it, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of the court of first instance.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Chang-ju (Presiding Judge)