본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대법원 2015.10.29 2013다79016

공유물분할

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant B, D, U, X, AC, AH, AI, AM, AY, AY, BK, BP and Defendant AT.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 47(1) and (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”) provides that “However, if the contents of reconstruction have a special effect on the sectional owners of other buildings in the aggregate housing area, the consent of those sectional owners shall be obtained.”

In this case, the sectional owner of another building in the same complex which is specially affected means the sectional owner of another building who did not participate in the reconstruction if the reconstruction of a part of the building is conducted in the same complex, and whether to reconstruct a part of the building in the same complex does not, in principle, affect the sectional owner of the other building in the complex. However, if it particularly affects according to the contents of the reconstruction, it shall be interpreted to the effect that the consent of the sectional owner of the other building (the whole or part of the sectional owner of the other building

(2) In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision is just and there is no need for consent under the proviso of Article 47 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the proviso of Article 47 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.