In a case where the preservation registration of a newly constructed building was completed before the completion of the building, the validity of registration (effective), and whether such a legal doctrine applies to a case where a part of one building has been registered as an object of sectional ownership in the state that a part of the building does not have any structural independence suitable for the object of sectional ownership, and where the establishment registration was completed successively based on the establishment registration of a mortgage, etc.,

Even if a registration for the preservation of a newly constructed building was completed before the completion of the construction, the registration may not be deemed null and void as long as the construction is completed. This legal doctrine likewise applies to a case where a part of a 1 building has been registered as the object of sectional ownership without any structural independence suitable for the object of sectional ownership, and the establishment registration or ownership transfer registration, etc. was completed successively based on which the establishment registration or ownership transfer registration, etc. was completed, and then a sign capable of clearly distinguishing the boundaries pursuant to Article 1-2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 1-2 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 1-2 (1) of the Building Number Marks are installed firmly on the floor and the building number signs

Articles 1-2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations on Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks under Article 1-2 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

Supreme Court Decision 70Da260 delivered on April 14, 1970 (No. 18-1, 332)

Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Law Firm Hun-Ba, Attorneys Na-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Law Firm Rodon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Na14947 Decided June 13, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring building

A. If a part of one building is to be the object of sectional ownership, it is required to be independent from other parts in structural aspect or in use. However, its structural independence is required because the scope of physical control over the object of ownership mainly is required due to the necessity to clarify the scope of physical control. Thus, if the scope of the object of sectional ownership can not be determined by structural division, it cannot be said that the structural independence exists: Provided, That with respect to commercial buildings within a certain scope, the structural independence requirement may be determined by Article 1-2 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) that relaxed the requirements for structural independence, Article 1-2(1) of the “Regulations on Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks” (hereinafter “Regulations on Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks”) under Articles 1 and 2 of the “Rules on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings” (hereinafter “Rules on Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks”).

Meanwhile, even if the registration of preservation of a newly constructed building was completed before the completion of the building, such registration shall not be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da260, Apr. 14, 1970). This legal doctrine applies to a case where a part of one building is registered as the object of sectional ownership in the state that a part of the building does not have sufficient structural independence suitable for the object of sectional ownership, and the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage or ownership transfer registration, etc. was completed in order based on it, and a mark clearly distinguishing the boundary pursuant to the provisions of Article 1-2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, Article 1-2 of the Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks are installed on the floor, and the building number signs assigned for each sectional store become the object of sectional ownership.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court, ① Defendant Jinjin Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is the company owner and interest in the new construction of the building of 5 stories underground and 15 stories above ground (hereinafter “instant building”). The sales contract with the Plaintiffs on each building listed in the attached Table 3 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “each sectional store”) was concluded between the Plaintiffs; ② on January 31, 2008, the registration of preservation of ownership of each sectional store in the name of the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was completed; ③ on August 13, 2008, with the consent of Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) as to each sectional store with the boundary line of the building of 3 stories above 20 years below, and the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Plaintiffs, each of which was installed with the boundary line of 10 years above 10 years below the size of each of the instant building.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, at the time of completing the registration of initial ownership in the name of the Defendant company and the registration of initial ownership in the names of Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the basis of the registration of initial ownership in the name of the Defendant company and the registration of initial ownership in the names of Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4, each divided store failed to secure structural independence suitable for the object of divided ownership. However, since the signs clearly identifying the boundaries under the provisions of Article 1-2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, boundary marks, and building number marks are firmly installed on the floor, and the objects of divided ownership are also attached to each divided store, the registration of initial ownership in the name of the Defendant company with respect to each divided store cannot be deemed null and void. Accordingly, the registration of initial ownership in the names of Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the registration of initial ownership in the names of the Plaintiffs

D. The lower court’s conclusion is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of divided ownership of commercial buildings

2. As to the remainder

The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the entire judgment of the court below in the petition of appeal of this case, but the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds of appeal, and the appellate brief does not contain any grounds of appeal as to the remaining portion except the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of establishment of the

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)