In a case where the leased building has an independent part extended by its title from the existing building due to its structural structure and use, whether such extended part can be the object of independent ownership (affirmative)

In case where a lessee has extended a building on a leased basis of its title and the extended part becomes the constituent part of the existing building due to the conformity thereof, no separate ownership shall be established for the extended part, but if the extended part is independent from the existing building due to its structural failure or use, the sectional ownership shall be the object of independent ownership.

Article 1 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Articles 215 and 256 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 10 others (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 98Na2099 delivered on January 22, 1999

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In case where a lessee has extended a building on a leased basis of its title, if the extended part becomes the constituent part of the existing building due to the conformity of the extended part, no separate ownership shall be established for the extended part, but if the extended part is independent from the existing building due to its structural structure or use, the extended part becomes the object of independent ownership.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff acquired ownership of approximately 158.5 square meters of the building originally constructed on the building site of this case or the building for which the defendants had been newly constructed on the building site of this case, and it was difficult for the defendants to acquire or rebuild the building of this case or the building of this case without permission, and the plaintiff extended or reconstructed the building of this case to a lessee for the purpose of using it as business place on the building of this case. The plaintiff's new building of this case or the building of this case was not constructed on the 197 square meters and the building of this case for which the defendants had been newly constructed on the 7th square meters of the building site of this case or the building of this case. The plaintiff's new building of this case was not constructed on the 9th square meters of the building of this case or the building of this case, and the tenant's new building of this case could not be seen as having been newly constructed on the 9th square meters of the building and the building of this case for which the defendants had been newly constructed on the 9th building site of this case.

However, such determination by the court below is clear by its original decision that the initial temporary building was changed to the same form as the building of this case, and that it was not about expansion or reconstruction in the process of changing the original temporary building into the same form as the building of this case. According to the records, if the building of this case was owned by the plaintiff as a whole with drawing indication Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, and Ga, etc., which were composed of approximately 331 square meters of the building of this case, and if it was established after the initial building was changed to the same form as the building of this case, the original building was owned by the tenant of this case with approximately 160 square meters of sectional ownership of the building of this case, and there is room for the court below to view that there was an independent building of this case as part of the building of this case which was owned by the tenant of the previous building of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff, as part of the building of the building of this case, the extended building of this case, the size of which was owned by 14 square meters of each building of the building of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the plaintiff acquired ownership by conformity with the whole building of this case only with the fact that the original provisional building had been changed to the building of this case without failing to exhaust all deliberation on this point, and that the plaintiff acquired ownership by reason of the fact that it had been changed to the building of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of sectional ownership due to extension, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)