207 Gaz. 23955 Verification, etc. of parking tickets

Attached List

[Judgment of the court below]

Do○ apartment autonomous council

Seoul Guro-dong ○ ○○ Do○

Representative Chairman Kim ○○

Attorney Lee Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

August 13, 2008

December 31, 2008

1. The plaintiffs' request for confirmation of parking tickets is dismissed.

2. The Defendant: the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○ steel-framed reinforced concrete structure, and the building of reinforced concrete structure

A parking lot for 25th floor underground of the Do○○○○, 3rd floor of a business facility multi-family housing for 25th floor;

Installation of entrances, locking devices, boards or other structures at the vicinity of the entrance and the elevator or other means;

The plaintiffs should not interfere with entry and use of their own stock parking lots.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

4. 80% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant, and 20% by the Plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' requests for confirmation of parking tickets for the third and third-class shares of parking lots, and the permission of the plaintiffs

Claim for the prohibition of parking interference against the recipient.

1. Basic facts

(a) Current status of buildings;

1) The instant building, which is a major complex building with the 25th floor above the ○○ Underground 5th floor in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu.

After construction by ○○○ Co., Ltd. and completed around December 1997, the parking lot from 5th to 2nd underground.

And Management Office (power generation room, electricity room, machine room), 1st underground or upper 3rd above ground, 4th above ground to 8th above ground.

Officetels and 9 stories above ground or 25 stories above ground.

2) The exclusive use area of the building of this case, the commercial buildings and officetels (hereinafter referred to as “the commercial buildings of this case”) are the commercial buildings and officetels.

5. 5. 63m, 631. 53m, apartment house 6. 22m, 2043. 31 commercial buildings and 69 officetels (at least 5.0

100), apartment units 67 households, and parking lots 101 parking lots 101 units (the 4,5 stories underground, the 1st floor

The head shall not exceed a certain standard for large automobiles and RV vehicles, and his own stocks (elevators).

Parking lot 52 parking lot 52(26th underground and 3th floor parking lot), large automobiles with single-story parking lot

And RV vehicle parking is 5 vehicles on the ground, 158 vehicles in total.

B. Status of the parties

1) The building of this case is currently the defendant, ○○, a corporation delegated by ○○ after the completion of construction.

A. At the nine-story office in use, the entire building of this case was managed, and from January 1, 1998, A.S.

The occupants of apartments have sold lots and the apartment house occupants have managed the common areas of only the apartment and the occupants of the apartment.

On February 2, 1998, activities are performed by forming a defendant around 199 and acquiring nine-story offices from Han-○.

The number of commercial buildings in this case began, and the number of commercial buildings in this case must be late than apartment buildings and around 2002.

shall form a management body to manage their section of exclusive use and the section of common use only by the buyers.

The activity was commenced in the integrated disaster prevention office of the first underground floor.

2) The Plaintiffs acquired the instant shopping mall buyers or succeeded to a trade, etc.

(c) Status of parking lots used;

1) Data:

64.85 Of total 158, officetels 50.30, commercial buildings 31.33

The secondary design changes are marked, and they are as follows, and other Pamplings or sales contracts in lots:

The area of the parking lot by exclusive use area of each apartment unit, officetel, and commercial building buyer (e.g., square) for each unit unit;

It seems that only was announced and did not specify the parking lot. The building ledger of the plaintiffs seems to be the building ledger.

All sections for common use include 5 - Meet 2 underground parking lots.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Separate use

The building of this case was sold in the order of apartment, officetel, and commercial buildings, and it was completed first after the occupancy.

An apartment resident who forms a management body has diverted his/her own stock parking lot through consultation with two ○○.

c) A naturally remaining mechanical parking lot for the buyers of the commercial buildings in this case thereafter;

use. The latter mechanical parking lot shall thereafter be within the management body:

each of them shall have a full-time parking lot management staff of the Defendant, and each of them shall have a full-time parking lot management staff.

Access is allowed only for the fixed vehicle.

On the other hand, a large passenger car which cannot be parked in a mechanical parking lot for the first time in 2002.

giving rise to the problem of merchants and using a parking lot with a monthly fee to the defendant;

The agreement has been reached, and this practice has led to the present time.

3) Facilities, etc.

Once the entrance enters the building of this case as the same passage, the parking lot for self-stocks and the mechanical junction

The Deputy Director shall have a separate entrance. The elevator shall have access to the instant commercial buildings and Ah, respectively.

The elevators with access to mar are classified, but all connects to the self-stocks parking lot of 2,3 stories underground.

(as for the fourth and fifth floors underground, a mechanical parking lot, in principle, a person who is not for repair or management;

. Electricity shall not enter the building, with a high voltage of 22,00 V from outside, and with a high voltage of 00 V from the building of this case

Having been sealed into a 4-story mechanical room, which is lowered to 380 V, commercial buildings, apartment buildings, ices in power distribution teams.

el, parking lot carp, etc. supplied with each machine of the self-stocks parking lot and mechanical parking lot;

In the snow, separate measuring instruments are installed and the defendant and the management body of the commercial building of this case bear each of their own electricity charges.

c. The management expenses of the mechanical parking lot are more than those of the self-stocks parking lot.

[Evidence - No dispute over a part, or the whole of the pleadings, Gap 10, 15, 17, 18, Eul 1, 12, 31, witness new ○, and new ○

[Purpose]

2. Benefits of confirmation;

The plaintiffs' claim for the confirmation of parking tickets shall be implemented so long as it maintains the claim for performance for the same purpose.

It is unlawful because there is no legal interest to seek confirmation separately from claim.

3. Requests for prohibition of parking interference.

A. cited part - Claim for the prohibition of interference with the plaintiffs

The plaintiffs are the sectional owners who own some of the buildings of this case, and are often the owners of sectional ownership.

Food parking lots shall be the section for common use of the building of this case along with the mechanical parking lot, and the public section shall be the section.

Since division belongs to the sharing of all sectional owners, the plaintiffs, as co-owners, are the self-stocks of common use.

A parking lot shall be entitled to use it for its original purpose (the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings)

(hereinafter referred to as the "Joint Act") 10, Article 11 of the Act, and the defendant has a parking manager to enter and use the plaintiffs.

Since it is identical to the above that obstructing body, the plaintiffs' claim to exclude interference is reasonable.

We examine the dispute over the defendant. 1 The defendant's implied assertion - The defendant, as of February 1998, from the time of occupancy.

It is classified as the present between the shop occupants and the apartment occupants who are the defendant.

At this time, there has been an implied agreement, and the effect of this agreement is a party to the original agreement or its successor.

Since this agreement also remains effective for the plaintiffs, the resolution of sectional owners (Article 15 of the Aggregate Act) is adopted.

2) The ground for appeal pointing this out is that the sectional owners do not have the right to own shares.

The following circumstances presented as the basis for an express agreement, i.e., a special case until the instant lawsuit is filed:

(1) Machines since the mid-2002, the management body organized by the merchants of this case.

For large automobiles not permitted by mechanical parking lots while managing only the parking lot;

on the basis of the fact that entry control has been carried out, it is not enough to recognize the existence of an implied agreement.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the implied agreement of the defendant's assertion is in accordance with the law governing the sharing relationship.

If not, (the defendant shall not explain any legal basis) other than the party to the agreement.

the parties to an agreement to the agreement, if affirmed, shall not have effect on the part of the parties.

It recognizes the effect of a real right that limits the real right of the successor to the right to use common areas.

This is against the principle of registration of change in real rights as provided by Article 186 of Korean Civil Code, and the recognition of agreement.

In addition, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) Part of the claim for common use – The defendant shall claim part of his/her own stocks for only the occupants of the apartment.

Although it seems that the section for common use (Article 10(1) and Article 23(2) seems to be a claim, it is for construction and sale.

up to the deadline, parking of self-owned stocks as a parking lot for the buyers of the commercial building and the buyers of the apartment.

The head of the building and the parking lot of this case are not provided with any data that classify the parking lot of this case from the original date

The body had common areas for the entire owners of the instant commercial buildings and apartment buildings, and the Gu during the subsequent period.

Section 100,000,000,000,000

C) A self-stocks parking lot has a separate entrance within the instant building, etc.

It is not sufficient to recognize that only the occupants have changed into a part of the common area, and otherwise recognized.

There is no evidence.

(3) Claim for the designation of a seller - The defendant may allow two ○○, which is a seller, to be used separately from the beginning.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs' property rights were designated to the sellers, and the plaintiffs' property rights were offered.

shall not be the reason to set forth in this subsection.

A dispute between the defendant and the defendant is without merit.

B. dismissed portion - Claim for the prohibition of interference with the plaintiffs' permitted persons

The Plaintiffs, on the basis of the right to use the self-owned stock parking lot of the Plaintiffs, shall be the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is the owner of commercial buildings and officetels and the customer’s visit is inevitable for the business and work.

Claim for the prohibition of parking obstruction against persons who have obtained their permission is owned or adjacent to the plaintiffs' rights.

Libya argues that this is based on cooking.

The right to the section for common use derived from the ownership of the section for exclusive use, the first right to the section for exclusive use.

section for exclusive use is only the right to use the section for common use by the owner (Article 10, Article 11, etc. of the Aggregate Act);

Even if a section of exclusive ownership inevitably requires customer visits due to its nature, such as commercial buildings, etc.

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is naturally permitted by the owner of the section of exclusive ownership.

There is no legal basis to regard such right as including a right to use (the recognition of this right under the Civil Code of Korea)

185. Also, this case's commercial building is against the legal principle of real rights as set forth by section 185.

Many customers who visit the water parking lot by means of transportation other than passenger cars required to park;

The commercial building of this case particularly requires parking of the parking lot of this case.

There is no circumstance to deem that the customer’s visit using the vehicle is premised. Ultimately, there is no reason to deem that the customer’s visit is the premise

The use of the self-owned parking lot should be governed by the resolution for the management of common areas (Article 16 of the Aggregate Act, etc.).

This part of the claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are justified only within the scope of the above recognition.

Judges Lee Dong-ju

1) The Parking Lot Act defines “1) The Parking Lot Act defines “a mechanical parking lot” as “an off-road parking lot where mechanical parking equipment is installed and an annexed parking lot” (Article 2(1).a mechanical parking lot” as “an off-road parking lot where mechanical parking equipment is installed and an annexed parking lot” (Article 2(1).

3) The mechanical parking lot in a large complex building is located within "in the inside" other than "in the inside" of "in the inside". Thus, the mechanical type of the parking lot in the large complex building is located within "in the inside".

It is different from the concept of parking lot.