(a) Details of the right to use a site owned by the sectional owners of an aggregate building;

(b) The case holding that the buyer’s possession of the apartment constructed on the site of one parcel and the commercial building among the commercial buildings owned on the site of the building is lawful without relation to the share he/she has completed the registration of the site ownership;

A. In a case where the sectional owners of one building co-ownership the site of the building, each sectional owner has a legitimate right to use the entire site of the building according to the purpose of use, regardless of the share of co-ownership as to the site, barring special circumstances, such as the existence of separate regulations, barring any special circumstance. Such a legal doctrine shall be deemed likewise applicable to a case where the sectional owners of several buildings constructed on one parcel of land co-ownership the land.

B. The case holding that since a construction company newly constructed and sold an apartment and commercial building as a separate building on one parcel of land, and completed a registration that made part of the above site's co-ownership as a site ownership to the apartment occupants, and sold it to others and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the building's remaining co-ownership shares, but if the above share of the building site was registered as a site ownership for two stores during the course of the lawsuit in this case, the purchaser of the above commercial building used the above site as a co-owner of the building site from the time of the acquisition of the above building to the date of completion of the registration as to the above site ownership, and that the buyer used the above site of the building as a co-owner of the building site from the time of the acquisition of the above building to the date of completion of the registration as to the above site ownership, and the buyer's possession of the above site of the building was purchased by the building or completed the registration of site ownership without the proportion of co-ownership shares

Article 263 of the Civil Act, Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, and Article 21 of the Multi-Unit

Plaintiff 1 and 59 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Go Young-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na9318 delivered on November 12, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where the sectional owners of one building co-ownership the site of the building, each sectional owner has a legitimate right to use the whole site of the building according to the purpose of use, regardless of the proportion of co-ownership on the site, unless there are special circumstances such as the existence of separate regulations, and such a legal principle should be applied likewise to a case where the sectional owners of several buildings constructed on the land of one unit co-ownership of the land.

According to the records, the housing construction of the non-party company, which was a co-defendant of the first instance trial, was newly constructed and sold as a separate building the above apartment house of 1/60 household and 1 commercial building of this case which became an underground and underground store of this case from the beginning to the site of this case. Accordingly, the two buildings are separated from their structure and appearance, and their functions and usage are entirely different. The above housing construction completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the above apartment bonds of this case on September 28, 1984 and the commercial building of this case under its name on November 13, 1985, and thereafter, the registration of the above apartment bonds of 60 on November 14, 1985 was completed on the 20th anniversary of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate, the above apartment land of this case was transferred to the defendant as the above 9/10 of the site ownership of this case on the 20th day after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer as 9/160 of the above apartment house ownership of this case.

If the facts are as above, the defendant used the site of the commercial building of this case as the co-owner of the site of this case from the time of the acquisition of the commercial building of this case until August 17, 1993, in the status of purchasing his right from the house construction of members who owned the right to use the site of this case, and the next day is a person who has completed the registration of the right to the site of this case and used the site of the commercial building of this case. Thus, the defendant's possession of the site of this case is lawful without relation to the share purchased by the defendant or completed the

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land in this case without any title on the ground that the defendant occupied the part where the commercial building was constructed. However, the conclusion is just in its conclusion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing, the lack of reasons, the unjust enrichment, or the illegal act affecting the judgment, and there is no ground to view that there is no other opinion in this regard.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)