(a) Requirements for a part of the building to become the object of sectional ownership;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the partitioned ownership of a fish market building, the structure of which covers the roof of a half-month panel on the reinforced concrete outer wall, and which partitioned lines with paint lines on the inner floor packed with concrete, is reversed;

(a) If a part of the building is to be the object of sectional ownership, it shall be independent from other parts due to its structural structure or use;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized divided ownership on the ground that the structure of a building is covered by reinforced concrete outer wall, and only the inner floor is covered by concrete, and there is no partitions or blocking facility for the boundary or specific purpose of each store, but if the line is partitioned into 500 shops in a square box and passage, each store cannot be seen as meeting the structural independence even considering the characteristics of the use that the building is used as a fish market, and each shop owner clearly uses it solely because the boundary is he has been accumulated on the boundary, or each store is registered as an object of individual ownership, even if it has been traded separately from the right of co-ownership of the market site, even if there are circumstances that each store is registered as an object of separate ownership, and it cannot be recognized as an object of independent ownership.

Article 2 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da3151 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 1685) 92Da41214 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1151)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 93Na6881 delivered on July 15, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above part of the above building site was owned by the non-party 2 and the above part of the non-party 3 building's separate ownership transfer registration for the non-party 2's non-party 3 building's separate ownership and the above part of the non-party 3 building's separate ownership transfer registration for the non-party 3 building's separate ownership and the non-party 2's separate ownership transfer registration for the non-party 3 building's separate ownership and the non-party 9's separate ownership transfer registration for the non-party 3 building's separate ownership and the non-party 2's separate ownership transfer registration for the non-party 3 building's separate ownership and the non-party 2's separate ownership transfer registration for the non-party 3 building's separate ownership. The non-party 2's separate ownership and the non-party 3's separate ownership registration for the non-party 3 building's separate ownership and the non-party 2's separate ownership.

2. However, if part of the building is to be the object of sectional ownership, that part must be separated from other parts due to its structural structure or use.

In this case, according to the facts determined by the court below, the above fish market building is a concrete package, and there is no partitions or blocking facilities for the boundary of each store or for a specific purpose. However, if the inside floor of the building is divided into 500 stores and passages, the line is in the shape of a square, and if the facts are as above, each of the above buildings can not be deemed to have the independence in the structure, considering the characteristics of the use that the above building is being used as a fish market, and each of the above stores can not be deemed to have been used exclusively for each exclusive use, or each of the above stores is registered as an object of separate ownership, or is traded independently from the co-ownership of the above market site, even if there are circumstances that each of the above stores has been registered as an object of separate ownership due to the registration and has been traded independently from the co-ownership of the above market site. Thus, the conclusion is not different, each of the above stores cannot be recognized as an independent object of ownership.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged each of the above stores as the object of independent ownership and accepted each of the above stores' request for the evacuation based on the plaintiffs' ownership. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sectional ownership, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)