Whether a part constructed as a joint shelter, which is a common use area of multi-family housing, is the purpose of sectional ownership in cases where the part is remodeled into a residential room and used for residential purposes (negative)

If a part of a building was already constructed as a joint shelter for the owners of multi-family housing at the time of completion of the construction, the part of the building that was already implemented at the time is provided for the public use of all or some of the sectional owners in the structure of the aggregate building pursuant to Article 3(1), Article 10(1), and Article 13 of the Multi-unit Building Act, and Article 13 of the Multi-unit Building Act, and the object of sectional ownership is only the co-ownership of all sectional owners, and the co-owners cannot dispose of their share in common use separately from their section of exclusive ownership. Therefore, even if the above section of common use, which is part of the building, was remodeled

Article 215 of the Civil Act, Articles 3(1), 10(1), and 13 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2445 decided Jan. 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 13637) decided Feb. 14, 1984 (Gong1984, 498)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 91Na2776 delivered on November 1, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4, etc. were purchased from the non-party 5, non-party 6, and the non-party 7 in Busan Dong-gu in order to construct 12 households on the above ground, but they did not complete the construction due to the bankruptcy of the constructor. The non-party 2 entered the above apartment with the non-party 8 on September 20, 1983 at the expense of the Dong-gu in order to construct the above apartment, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 8, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 8, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 8.

2. However, examining and comparing related evidence, the apartment house of this case is an apartment building composed of 12 households, including 2 households and 4 households, from its front place upon construction in the sloping area. The contents of construction contract with the above non-party 8, which was concluded on September 20, 1983, are to construct only the above 12 households for residential purpose. On the premise that the method of paying construction cost to the housing of five households completed is stipulated. Meanwhile, the part of the building of this case is located below the above 5th apartment house and back the 4th floor, and is now residing by the defendants. However, this part was constructed as the common shelter of the above 12 household as required under the construction laws and regulations, and its structure can be seen as having been constructed as the common shelter structure of the above 12th household, which is the common residential building of the above 12th household, and its structure can be seen as having been established as the joint shelter structure of the above 198 main residential building at the time of completion of construction inspection.

In addition, if the section of the building in dispute was constructed as a joint shelter for the owners of the above apartment house 12 households at the time of completion of construction, the section of the building that was already in force at the time belongs to the co-ownership of all sectional owners and cannot be the object of sectional ownership, since the section of the building that was provided for the public use by all or some of the sectional owners in the structure of the aggregate building belongs to the co-ownership of all sectional owners and cannot be the object of sectional ownership. Since the co-owners can not dispose of the share to the section for common use separately from their section for exclusive use, it is not the house of the above five generation that the above non-party 8 can receive the construction cost, and even if the above section for common use, which is the part of the building in dispute, was remodeled to the residential room and sold to the defendants for residential use, the part of the building in dispute does not become the object of sectional ownership, and even if the above section for common use is not the object of sectional ownership of the above section for the purpose of sectional ownership.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the part of the building in dispute was constructed as an independent building without a real and practical relation such as load, etc. with another apartment house from the time of completion of construction to the point of use, and judged that the above non-party 8 has the authority to dispose of it. The above non-party 8 violated the rules of evidence and recognized the fact in violation of the rules of evidence, or erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ownership and disposal relation of common areas in the aggregate building, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the argument on this point is justified

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)