beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Intervenor against the Defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the principle of prohibition of separate disposal of the right to use land of an aggregate building, 1) pursuant to the principle of prohibition of separate disposal of the right to use land of an aggregate building, 7 commercial buildings located on the land of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J land (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”).
The transfer of ownership to the co-ownership of the site that is separated from the section for exclusive use does not take effect, and the co-ownership of the land by the owner of the section for exclusive use and the co-ownership of the co-ownership are bound to coincide. In addition, according to Article 15 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts, each sectional owner shall be regarded as one person, and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2
Article 28(1)1(c) of the Commercial Building Act provides that when one person owns a lot of land or a large number of buildings, regardless of the number thereof, the owner of the land, etc. shall be excluded from calculating the quorum for the owner of the land, etc. as to J,O, and K’s land, the site of the commercial building of this case, regardless of the number thereof. Even if a registration has been completed only with respect to the co-ownership of the site, separately from the section for exclusive use of the commercial building of this case, and the registration is valid, the owner of the land, etc. shall be deemed to co-ownership of the land, and the owner of the land, etc. shall be calculated as one person. 2) The commercial building owner of this case excluded from overlapping land owners, etc. is jointly owned by AO (hereinafter “AO”), E, and Plaintiff F was calculated as the owner of the land, etc. by owning a large number of real estate, and Plaintiff E was calculated as the owner of the land, etc., as Plaintiff E owned the commercial building of this case.
A and B are sole owners of each real estate, and they are separate from them.