beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal, including costs incurred by participation in the appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is called the second-party inquiry of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In addition to adding the following judgments, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Additional determination
D. As to this, the plaintiff himself/herself has the right to use the site under Articles 20(3) and 20 (Indivisibility of the exclusive ownership and the right to use the site) (1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings.
(2) No sectional owner may dispose of the right to use site separately from his/her section of exclusive ownership.
Provided, That this shall not apply where otherwise provided by the regulations.
(3) The prohibition of separate disposition under the main sentence of paragraph (2) shall not be effective against a third party who has acquired a real right in good faith unless the purport thereof is registered.
Since the Defendants constitute a bona fide third party under this provision, the Defendants asserted that the prohibition of separate disposition cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff. Thus, the right to use site is a right which a sectional owner has against the site of a building in order to own a section for exclusive use, and in order to establish that right, considering the circumstances other than the existence of an aggregate building and the right that a sectional owner is entitled to use the site in order to own a section for exclusive use, the third party of the above “ bona fide” refers to a third party who has acquired the land subject to the right to use site, in principle, without considering the circumstances that are formed as a site for an aggregate building (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da71578, Jan. 17, 2013). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had known that the instant land was a site for an aggregate building, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.