Although the boundary walls installed between neighboring sections lose the independence in structure and use, the location and size of each sectioned building may be specified and where it is easy to restore it because it is temporary premised on the restoration by social norms, the effect of registration of the sectioned building is effective).

Even if the boundary wall installed between neighboring sections loses the independence in structure and use as a sectioned building due to removal for certain reasons, if the location and size of each sectioned building can be specified, and if it is temporarily premised on the restoration as a sectioned building by social norms and it is easy to restore it, each sectioned building cannot be easily concluded that the substance as a sectioned building is lost, and even if it is still valid as a registration indicating the sectioned building.

Article 1 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Articles 186 and 215 of the Civil Act

New Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 98Ra32 dated June 8, 1998

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the appeal by the court of auction against the decision of the court of auction dismissing the application for auction on the premise that the status of each of the stores of this case lost the independence as a sectioned building on the premise that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on December 20, 1995, and that each of the above stores was currently used as one store by removing the facilities installed in each of the above stores after the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed. However, each of the above stores was dismissed on the ground that the actual condition of each of the above stores lost the independence as a sectioned building.

2. Even if the boundary wall installed between neighboring sections loses independence in structure and use as a sectioned building due to removal for a certain reason, if it is possible to specify the location and size of each sectioned building, and if it is temporary under the premise of restoration as a sectioned building by social norms, and if it is easy to restore it, it cannot be readily concluded that the substance as a sectioned building is lost, and the registration is valid as a registration indicating the sectioned building.

According to the records, each of the stores of this case was constructed on or around December 1994, and each of the above stores was constructed on or around December 1994, and the non-party leased each of the above stores to other. The lessee used each of the above stores as a Smarket and removed the boundary walls in line with its use from the date not later than December 1994 and then reached the present situation. Meanwhile, Article 5 of the Rules on the Entry and Management, etc. of Building Ledger (amended by Ordinance No. 46 of Jan. 18, 1996) provides that the building owner shall submit the current building condition drawings to the competent administrative agency in filing an application for inspection of use after the completion of construction work. Since the boundary walls of each of the above stores of this case were removed only for temporary use of the above stores as Smarket, but also for the temporary use of the above stores as the lease contract and the restoration of the building area at any time, it can be deemed that the specific area of each of the above stores will be kept in accordance with the above Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

If so, the court below should have determined the propriety of the decision to dismiss the request for auction by making it clear whether the removal of the boundary walls of each of the stores of this case is permanent or merely a temporary measure for business convenience, and whether the location and size of each of the above stores can be specified.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the appeal by the re-appellant on the ground that the registration on each of the stores of this case does not coincide with its current status is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a sectioned building. Therefore, the reappeal on this point is justified.

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)