In a case where a chonsegwon has been established for a part of a building, whether a person having chonsegwon may apply for auction for the remainder of the building which is not the object of chonsegwon (negative)

Where a right to lease on a deposit basis has been established for a part of a building, the person having chonsegwon has the right to obtain prior reimbursement of the deposit money to the whole building in accordance with Article 303(1) of the Civil Act. If the settlor of chonsegwon delays the return of the deposit money, pursuant to Article 318 of the Civil Act, he may request an auction of the object of chonsegwon, or the person having chonsegwon has no right to request an auction, separate from the right to preferential reimbursement for the remainder of the building which is not the object of chonsegwon. In such a case, the person having chonsegwon cannot request an auction of the whole building beyond the part which is the object of chonsegwon. In such a case, the person having chonsegwon cannot make a request for an auction of the whole building because the part which was the object of chonsegwon cannot be divided into an independent object of ownership because

Articles 303(1) and 318 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Order 91Ma256, 257 Decided March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1269) Supreme Court Decision 96Da53628 Decided August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2793), Supreme Court Decision 98Da50869 Decided February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 801)

Korea SFFFF Co.

Daegu District Court Order 2000Ra305 dated December 9, 2000

The reappeal is dismissed.

Where a right to lease on a deposit basis has been established for a part of a building, the person having chonsegwon has the right to obtain prior reimbursement of the deposit money from the whole building in accordance with Article 303(1) of the Civil Act. If the settlor of chonsegwon delays the return of the deposit money pursuant to Article 318 of the Civil Act, he may request an auction of the object of the right to lease on a deposit basis, or there is no right to request an auction (see Supreme Court Order 91Ma256, 257, Mar. 10, 1992). In such a case, the person having chonsegwon cannot request an auction of the whole building beyond the part which was the object of the right to lease on a deposit basis because the part which was the object of the right to lease on a deposit basis cannot be divided into an independent object because of its structural stability or independence in its use, and therefore, it cannot be deemed otherwise because the application for auction of the part only is impossible.

The court below maintained the first instance court's decision which dismissed the application for voluntary auction on the whole of the building by the re-appellant, who is a person having chonsegwon, on the remaining 132.3 square meters on the 7th floor of office-based neighborhood living facilities and 7th floor business facilities of 504.8 square meters on the 7th floor of the building in Daegu Northern-gu (No. 1 omitted), Daegu Northern-gu (No. 2 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), and the ground reinforced concrete structure, and the 7th floor business facilities of business facilities, as it is unlawful. The court below was just in accordance with the above legal principles and there is no error in law, and there is no error in law, as long as the right to request auction on the whole building is not recognized to some of the persons having chonsegwons due to the confirmation of the composition authorization for the settlors. Thus, the request for auction on the whole building cannot be allowed because there is a circumstance that the other

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)