An act of disposing of land contrary to the unity of section for exclusive use and right to use site shall not be effective.

In the instant case where there is no evidence to acknowledge the special circumstances such as the existence of regulations to separately dispose of the right to use site against the section for exclusive use, the sectional ownership of the instant sectional ownership occurred, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a provision to separately dispose of the right to use site against the unity of the section for exclusive use and the right to use site thereafter.

2016 Ghana 204188

○○ et al. and 12

Republic of Korea and 4

November 11, 2016

December 23, 2016

1. As to the plaintiffs, ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○ 646 square meters:

A. Defendant Republic of Korea: (a) the registration of seizure completed on July 9, 199 by the ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office ○○;

B. The registration of seizure completed on January 17, 2003 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○ Office ○○○○○ Office ○○○○ Office ○○○ Office ○○○○ Office 3785,

C. Defendant A’s registration of seizure completed on March 18, 2004 by the ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○,6734;

D. The registration of seizure completed on January 15, 2007 by the ○○ District Court Northern ○○○○○ registry office, which was completed on January 15, 2007 under No. 3968;

E. The registration of establishment of a neighboring establishment that was completed on September 11, 1996 by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office 136781.

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne respectively, and the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs

○○○○○-si ○○, AA, ○○-si ○○○, and the ○○-gu, and

The part arising between BB shall be borne by the above Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

Paragraph (1) of this Article and the defendant Republic of Korea with respect to ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○ 646 square meters for the plaintiffs, the registration of seizure completed under No. 607111 on May 17, 1993, which was completed by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ ○○○ ○○

registration procedure of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed under No. 86643 of July 9, 1993 by the registry office

D. D. D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2, 1992, ○○○○-dong ○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 646m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

The registration of ownership transfer in the name ofCC was completed.

B. On October 28, 1992,CC applied for a construction permit on November 23, 1992 to newly construct and sell a multi-household household with 14 households with 14 floors underground and 3 floors above the instant land (hereinafter “the instant partitioned building”), and obtained permission on November 23, 1992. On December 3, 1992, it started the said construction work and advertised for sale by household at that time, and on December 11, 1992, it stated “multi-household house, 14 households, 14 underground floors and 3 floors above the ground level” in the outline of each building applied for an interim inspection.

C. On May 4, 1993, the owner side of the building, such asCC, entered into a sales contract with the subcontractor of the newly constructed construction of the instant partitioned building under the pretext of payment in kind. D on October 19, 1993, it completed the moving-in report of 102 out of the partitioned building of this case.

D. The instant partitioned building was completed around that time, but it continued to have not been approved for use due to a partial non-construction and violation of the Building Act.

E. Meanwhile, as to the land of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea stated in the purport of the claim on May 17, 1993

The registration of seizure of title (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of title 1") shall be as stated in the purport of the claim on July 9, 1993.

The registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the defendant Republic of Korea (the maximum amount of 00 billion won, hereinafter referred to as the "registration of a primary collateral security") is the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the defendant BB as stated in the order on September 11, 1996 (the registration of a collateral security

As indicated in the order on July 9, 1999, the registration of seizure under the name of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure under No. 2"), the registration of seizure under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure under No. 3"), as described in the order on January 17, 2003, the registration of seizure under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure under No. 4"), as described in the order on March 18, 204 (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○") was completed on January 15, 207.

F. Details of acquisition of shares in the land of this case

1) On May 13, 2009, Plaintiff EE 7/14 (the subsequent reduction of shares 1/14), Plaintiff F, Plaintiff GG, Plaintiff H 1/14 shares, respectively.

2) On August 5, 2009, the shares of Plaintiffs II, J, Plaintiff J, and K 1/14, respectively.

3) On December 8, 2010, Plaintiff LL and Plaintiff MM 1/28 shares respectively.

4) On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff N1/14 shares

G. On September 30, 2009, each registration of preservation of ownership has been made for each of 14 households with respect to the partitioned building of this case (the share of 1/14 out of each of the land in this case) and the status of ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership of each household at the time of the closing of argument in this case is as follows

1) Plaintiff EE 204, Plaintiff F 101, Plaintiff GG 302, Plaintiff HH 301, Plaintiff II 201, Plaintiff J J 102, and Plaintiff K 103 on September 30, 209

2) April 22, 2010 Plaintiff O 203

3) Plaintiff LL, Plaintiff MM 202 (Each 1/2 equity) on December 8, 2010

4) February 28, 2012 Plaintiff Posito B02

5) October 23, 2015 Plaintiff N304

6) 2016. 1. 29. 원고 QQ 104호

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 17 1, 2, A, 2, 3, 9 through 12, 14, and 4

Evidence 1-1 to 4, Evidence 8-1 to 14, Evidence 15-1 to 7, Evidence 18-1, 2, 3, Evidence 1-1 to 18-2, and Evidence 1, witness R testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

In order to establish sectional ownership of one building, 1 in objective and physical aspects

It is necessary to secure independence in structural structure and use of the building that exists and separate from the building.

In addition, parts of the building physically partitioned among one building shall be the objects of partitioned ownership.

There must be separate actions to distinguish (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da35020, Jul. 27, 1999).

Here, the act of partitioning a building under the legal concept without changing the physical form and quality of the building.

is a kind of legal act to divide a specific part into the objects of separate ownership, and time,

B. The separate intention of the disposal authority is not a special restriction on the method, and is objectively external;

application for a building permit even before the building is physically completed; or

It is objective that the intention to divide the future building into a sectioned building through the sale contract, etc.

(2) If so indicated, the existence of the act of subdivision may be recognized, and thereafter, one building and the act of subdivision shall be

If the corresponding partitioned building is completed objectively and physically, such building is still in the aggregate building ledger.

Even if registered or partitioned and not registered in the register, the partitioned ownership is established at that time;

C. (See, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da71578, Jan. 17, 2013).

The building permit of this case, which is the building owner, to be newly constructed on October 28, 192, applied for the construction permit of 14 households of multi-household houses, which is to be built on or around November 23, 1992, was granted building permit on or around December 3, 1992. The construction of this new construction was commenced on or around December 3, 1992, and the sales advertisement of each household was also conducted on or around December 3, 1992, and the outline of this building was indicated as 14 households even in the application for interim inspection, and as long as the sales contract for some households of the building of this case was concluded on or around May 193, 193, there was an expression of intention of the owner of the building, that is,, the act of division, to which the building of this case to be newly built was to be the object of sectional ownership. Since it is reasonable to deem that the building of this case corresponding to the above sectional ownership was completed at the time of ownership registration.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the testimony of Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 12, 13, Gap evidence 15-1 through 7, and part of the R is the objective and physical completion time of the partitioned building of this case between October 1992 and April 4, 1993.

Meanwhile, Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Act") provides that a sectional owner's right to use a site shall follow the disposition of his/her exclusive ownership. A sectional owner shall not dispose of his/her right to use a site separately from his/her exclusive ownership unless otherwise prescribed by the Act. The prohibition of separate disposal shall not oppose a third party who has acquired a real right in good faith without registering the purport thereof. The purport of the above provision is to prevent the separation of a section for exclusive use of an aggregate building and a right to use a site from the creation of sectional ownership without a right to use a site by preventing the occurrence of sectional ownership without a right to use a site from occurring (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da742, Mar. 10, 2006). Thus, the act of disposal of a site contrary to the unity of the section for exclusive use and the right to use a site has no effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da45652, Nov. 16, 200

On October 193, 1993, the sectional ownership of the partitioned building of this case was established and the right to use the site was established. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge the special circumstances such as the existence of regulations that allow the separate disposal of the right to use the site against the section for exclusive use, and there is no effect of separate disposal of the site that goes against the unity of the section for exclusive use and the right to use the site, and thus, the act of separate disposal of the site that goes against the unity of the right to use the site after the completion of the subsequent construction of this case after October 1993 shall be cancelled in violation of Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act: Provided, That each request for the registration of seizure 1 and the cancellation of the registration of the right to use the site of this case shall be without merit.