beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The scope of this Court’s adjudication is within the scope of this Court’s adjudication. The plaintiffs claim against the defendants for indemnity corresponding to the ratio of area of each part of exclusive ownership of the defendants among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the building in this case”) and with respect to the defendant C, the 1,655,645 won (the 2nd floor 1), each of the 124,980 won (the 2nd floor 4,362,184 won), each of the 424,622 won (the 3nd floor) against the defendant E, and the 124,980 won (the 2nd floor 3th floor) against the defendants, and damages for delay against the above 2,581,59 (the 1nd floor) against the defendant C, the 1nd court did not make a judgment with respect to the above 22,589 won (the 2nd floor 1), 24, 2629, and 314 (the 262nd and 4) against the above defendant C.
This constitutes a case where the first instance court omitted the judgment on part of the plaintiffs' claims, and the above omitted part is pending in the first instance court (see Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, the above omitted part is not subject to the judgment of this court.
2. Basic facts
A. 1) The instant building is a commercial building of the first and second floor above the ground, which is an Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”).
2) Of the instant buildings, the Plaintiffs are owners of 1/2 shares of the upper 14th floor No. 14 and 22.36 square meters (hereinafter “the instant store”). Defendant C is the owner of the 1/2th floor of the instant building, and Defendant C is the 660.98 square meters of the parking lot No. 1, 1, 60.98 square meters of the 2nd floor No. 1, 23.91 square meters of the 2nd floor No. 1, 23.91 square meters of the small 4, 32 square meters of the 2nd floor No. 4, 32 square meters of the 2nd floor, Defendant D is the 108.72 square meters of the amusement restaurant No. 3, and Defendant E
(b).