Whether a site for a parking lot adjacent to a 6m road can be seen as the land annexed to the hotel building (negative)

Even if land is formally divided into several lots, if the entire land is used as the land annexed to a building, it can be deemed as the land annexed to the building as stipulated in Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Ownership of Housing Sites, even if the land which is not directly constructed among the land is used as the land annexed to the building. However, if the hotel site and the land used for the hotel parking lot are divided into urban planning roads with a width of 6 meters which is provided for the passage of the general vehicle and pedestrians, the land and the hotel site are not simply divided as a formal lot, but it is difficult to regard the whole land as the land as the land annexed to the hotel building, so it cannot be deemed as the land annexed to the hotel building.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8372 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 704) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu10542 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2823), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1149 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2823), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2692 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong196Nu14753 delivered on March 25, 197)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu37713 delivered on November 13, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) on August 2, 1988, the plaintiff acquired land of 1110, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 198, and tourist accommodation facilities ( hotels) on the ground; and (b) acquired the land of this case 111, which is located on a 6-meter road from the 19th day of the same month, and used it as a hotel's employee and a parking lot for visitors; (c) the plaintiff and the above non-party applied for the approval of the change of the existing hotel on the land of this case to extend the 5th above ground to 7th above ground floor and use the land of this case as a parking lot; and (d) on the land of this case, the above 10th day after obtaining the approval from the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 18, 1991, the court below excluded the construction of the above 1st day-to-date hotel on the land of this case from the 1st day-to-land parking lot.

Even if land is formally divided into several lots, if the entire land is used as the land annexed to a building, it can be seen as the land annexed to a building as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Ownership of Housing Sites. However, according to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the road between the land of this case and the land of this case and the land of this case, which is the land of this case, is provided for traffic of general vehicles and pedestrians, as urban planning roads with a width of 6 meters. Thus, if the land of this case is divided into a road with a width of 6 meters, the land of this case and the land of the hotel can not be seen as the land of this case as the land annexed to the above hotel building, since it cannot be deemed as the land of this case as the land annexed to the above hotel building, or the land of this case is being used as a parking lot for the above hotel employees and visitors, or the construction of the above land of this case and the new hotel plan of this case, it cannot be concluded differently by the existing parking lot.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the land of this case constitutes the land annexed to the above hotel building for reasons stated in its holding. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the land annexed to a building as stipulated in Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Ownership of Housing Sites, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court 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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)