The purpose of Article 16 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act and the contents of preservation activities.

The purport of Article 16 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act is that the act of preservation to maintain the phenomenon of common areas of an aggregate building is distinguished from the act of management so that the owner of sectional ownership, who is a co-owner, can independently exercise it regardless of whether the co-owner, the co-owner, the co-owner, including not only the act of preservation, but also the act of preservation, such as the act of common ownership, but also the right of exclusion from

Article 16 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 85Na505 delivered on January 9, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the declaration of right:

The so-called "right appeal" can be made only on the ground that there is a cause falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. However, the argument that there is an illegality of misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, does not fall under any of subparagraphs of Article 11(1) and thus,

With respect to a licensed appeal:

According to the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, if a sectional ownership relationship is established in an aggregate building, a sectional owner and a manager shall be appointed, and the appointed manager shall have the authority and obligations to preserve, manage, and change the common area. However, according to Article 16(1) of the above Act, matters concerning the management of the common area shall be determined by a resolution at an ordinary meeting and the proviso thereof shall be determined by the joint owner. However, the purport of the above provision is that the preservation act to maintain the phenomenon of the common area of an aggregate building shall be performed by the sectional owner, who is the joint owner, separately from the management act to maintain the phenomenon of the common area of an aggregate building. The purport of the above provision is to make it possible for the joint owner, who is the joint owner. The content of the preservation act is to say that the sectional owner, as well as the right to demand the removal of interference based on the right to share and the right to request the return of the common property, can be performed independently by the sectional owner, including the right to demand

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff, who is a sectional owner of the aggregate building of this case, has accepted the claim of this case, seeking collection of the building and delivery of the building site on the ground, against the defendant who exclusively occupies the part of the judgment that falls under such common area, and it shall not be deemed that there was an error of law of misunderstanding legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, or of misunderstanding of legal principles, or of lack of reasoning. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)