beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant added “a decision on the defendant’s assertion” to the part claimed by adding or emphasizing the defendant in the trial, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the instant No. 101 does not belong to the stairs room or parking lot of the first floor, and that since L, which is the owner of the building, extends to a housing space separated in structure and serves as an independent leased object, it cannot serve as a common part of the sectional owners of the instant building.
However, as seen earlier, whether a certain part of an aggregate building is a section for exclusive use or a section for common use shall be determined at the time of sectional ownership establishment, namely, as a matter of principle, at the time when the entire building is completed and registered as a sectional building in the building ledger. It may not affect whether the building in this case is a section for exclusive use or a section for common use. On April 29, 2005, the building in this case was completed and registered as a sectional ownership in the building ledger, and it appears that the part in this case was offered for joint use by the owners of the building in this case as the stairs room of the first floor of the building in this case and the space attached to the parking lot, and even if the above space was modified without permission due to a residential room and L, which is the owner of the building, was leased to a third party, it is difficult to view that the lease contract constitutes a separate act unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da98294, Sep. 4, 2014).