1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 29, 198, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 20, 198 with respect to the share of 87/228 square meters with respect to 87/228 square meters in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun F. 228 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 8, 1990, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 18, 1990 with respect to the share of 33/228, out of the share of 87/228 of the said land under D’s name.
B. On May 18, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the share of 54/228 of the instant land at KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On May 19, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning share of 54/228 out of the said land.
C. The Plaintiff asserted that among the rents related to the Plaintiff’s co-ownership by occupying, using, and using the instant land against G, H, and I, the sectional owners of the instant building constructed on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff gain profit equivalent to the shortage of rent equivalent to the amount of insufficient land to be registered corresponding to the entire portion of each sectional owner, and that the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount. The Plaintiff filed a claim for land rent with the Youngcheon District Court, Youngcheon District Court Branching 2013Ga3922.
The above sectional owners of the building are null and void since the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant among the land in this case violates the principle of prohibition of separate disposal as stipulated in the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”). Since the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff, which has been made based on it, is also null and void, the plaintiff is not the co-owner of the land in this case, and thus, the plaintiff
In the case of Chuncheon District Court No. 2015Na4218, the appellate court of the above case, in which there is no evidence to acknowledge the rules, etc. that allow the said court to dispose of the right to use site separately from the section of exclusive ownership, the said court shall dispose of the right to use site of this case.