logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단7046
집합건물 공용부분(복도격벽) 원상회복 등
Text

1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

A. F. F.C. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. F.C. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 9-1, and the overall purport of the pleadings, and there is no counter-proof.

The plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the attached list 1 and 2, and the defendant C is the owner of 3 real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's building"), and each real estate listed in the attached list is the divided ownership of the E ground street building in Chuncheon City, Chuncheon, an aggregate building (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case").

B. Defendant D operates beauty rooms in the Defendant’s building.

C. The defendant building and the second floor of the commercial building of this case each point of which is linked in sequence to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 each point of the annexed drawing indicating 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 are installed with a tin-to-side string wall (a 305 cm, 239 cm, 10 cm thick), and steel door (10 cm, 210 cm, 4 cm thick). The defendants removed the above partition wall and steel door (hereinafter “the wall of this case, etc.”) from the sectional owners of the commercial building of this case without the consent of the sectional owners of the commercial building of this case. The defendants removed alinium aluminium (a 305 cm, 239 cm, 239 cm, 10 cm, 10 cm, 10 cm, 10 cm (10 cm, 25 cm) free wall of this case

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, even though the instant partition wall, etc. was a common part of the instant commercial building which is an aggregate building, the Defendants removed the instant partition wall, etc. without the consent of co-owners, and installed the instant glass wall, the Defendants asserted that they were obligated to remove the instant glass wall as their duty to restore to the Plaintiff and restore the instant partition wall, etc.

B. The Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”).

arrow