[1] Criteria for determining whether a part of an aggregate building is a common part or a common part

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the part of the glass wall in contact with the corridor in the building among the walls located in the 1st floor of the commercial building is not the section for exclusive use of the above store in light of the structure, appearance, use, etc. of the whole commercial building and the part of the 1st floor

[1] Articles 3 and 10(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Articles 3 and 10(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1497 delivered on October 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 1782) Supreme Court Decision 94Da9269 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 147)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dasan, Attorney Kim Gyeong-hee, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Jae-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Na2685 decided Nov. 28, 2007

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Corridors, stairs, and other sections of the building that lead to several sections for exclusive use in the aggregate building are provided for the common use of all or some of the sectional owners in the structure of the building, not the object of sectional ownership. Whether some sections of the building are provided for the common use of all or some of the sectional owners shall be determined by the objective purpose according to the structure of the building unless there is an agreement among the owners of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da9269 delivered on February 28, 1995).

In light of the structure, appearance, purpose of use, etc. of the entire building and the part of the 1st floor of the building, the court below held that the part of the glass wall in contact with the hallway part of the building in the 1st floor of the above 7th floor of the commercial building owned by the defendant is not a section for exclusive use of the above 7 shop. In full view of the above legal principles and the evidence adopted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the criteria for determining the section for exclusive use and common use of the aggregate building.

In this regard, the Supreme Court precedents cited by the Plaintiff in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and they cannot be applied as they are in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)