The case holding that where a separate registration of preservation of ownership has been made on the remainder of the fourth floor of a building after the registration of preservation of ownership is completed on the remaining part, if the whole remaining part of the fourth floor is recognized as a building for structural failure or actual use, the part registered later shall not be the independent building and shall not be the object of sectional ownership, and such registration shall also be null and void.

The case holding that where registration of preservation of ownership has been made for part of the remaining part of the fourth floor of a building as a building with fourth floor and the remaining part as a building with fourth floor and the registration of preservation of ownership has been completed, the remaining part of the fourth floor is recognized as a single building not divided into the whole structure or actual use, even though it is registered as a separate building on the management ledger of a building and the registration of preservation of ownership has been made based on it, even though it is registered as an independent building on the management ledger of a building and the registration of preservation of ownership has not been completed, it cannot be the object of sectional ownership as an independent building and it cannot be the object of sectional ownership. Accordingly, registration of preservation of ownership as to the third part of the above subparagraph is null and void as a double registration as to the part having the effect of registration of an unspecific building or registration of a building with

Articles 215(1) and 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Busan District Court Decision 90Na10817, 90Na10824 delivered on December 13, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and his/her attorney are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 indicated on the above 4th floor 8th floor 7th floor 4th floor 7th floor 7th floor 4th floor 7th floor 7th floor 4th floor 7th floor 4th floor 7th floor 4th floor 8th floor 4th floor 7th floor 9th floor 2th floor 9th floor 2th floor 9th floor 4th floor 5th floor 4th floor 5th floor 8th floor 4th floor 5th floor 5th floor 4th floor 5th floor 5th floor 5th floor 4th floor 5th floor 5th floor 4th floor 5th floor 5th floor 4th floor 5th floor 5th floor 5th floor 4th floor 5th floor 5th floor 5th floor 5th floor 5th floor 5th floor 197th 202.

2. Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, we affirm the above fact-finding by the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out, and if the structure and situation of use as to the part of the fourth floor of the above building that the plaintiff acquired are the same as the above, this part cannot be the object of sectional ownership as an independent building, and thus it cannot be exempted from the registration of preservation of ownership and registration of transfer of ownership in the plaintiff's name. Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or inconsistent reasoning.

In addition, so long as the registration on the part of the above fourth floor is null and void as a registration on a part of a building which cannot be an object of partitioned ownership, whether it overlaps with the registration on the part of the above fourth floor is unnecessary. Therefore, it is unreasonable to discuss the judgment of the court below as to whether it is unnecessary.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)