The requirements for establishing sectional ownership of one building, and whether sectional ownership is established if the existing building registered as a general building other than the aggregate building meets such requirements even before the registration of its alteration as a sectional building (affirmative)

In order for divided ownership to be established for one building, there exists one building in an objective and physical aspect, a divided building part must have independence in structure and use, as well as a physically partitioned building part of one building to be the object of divided ownership. Here, an act of divided ownership is a kind of legal act that intends to divide a specific part of a building into the object of divided ownership without changing the physical form and quality of the building. It is not a special restriction on time or method, but it is recognized if the intention of dividing the disposal authority objectively is objectively displayed.

Therefore, even before the change of the existing building registered as a general building which is not an aggregate building is registered as a sectioned building, if there is an act of division between the disposal authority and the disposal authority's intention to make the divided building as a sectional building with independence in structure and use, the sectional ownership is established. In addition, if the registration of change is completed to a sectioned building through the conversion registration procedure of the building ledger as to the existing building registered as an ordinary building through the conversion registration procedure, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was

Articles 1 and 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, Article 41 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 15 of the Rule on the Entry and Management of Building Registers, etc.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da71578 Decided January 17, 2013 (Gong2013Sang, 298)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Yellow-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appointed Party)

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Na9319 decided August 14, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A. In order to establish sectional ownership of one building, there exists one building in an objective and physical aspect, and separate parts of a building should be independent in its structure and use, and the physically partitioned parts of one building should be divided into the objects of sectional ownership. Here, division of a building is a kind of legal act that intends to divide a specific part of a building into the objects of sectional ownership without changing the physical form and quality of the building without changing the physical form and quality of the building. It is not a special restriction on the timing and method, but it is recognized if the intention of the disposal authority to divide the building objectively is objectively indicated (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da71578, Jan. 17, 2013, etc.).

Therefore, even before the change of the existing building registered as a general building which is not an aggregate building is registered as a sectioned building, if there is an act of division between the disposal authority and the disposal authority's intention to make the building as a sectioned building with independence in structure and use, the sectional ownership is established. In addition, if the registration of change is completed to a sectioned building through the conversion registration procedure of the building ledger as to the existing building registered as an ordinary building through the conversion registration procedure, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above conversion registration was conducted

B. The lower court, based on its adopted evidence, acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the building owner of the instant building, constructed on the ground of 266.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Jung-gu, Seoul and 266.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), divided the instant building into each specific part from the time of new construction, and divided the instant building into several sections, and the instant building was registered as a sectionally partitioned ownership at the collective building register upon conversion into a multi-household on October 9, 200, and the subsequent registration was completed. Thus, the lower court determined to the effect that the building owner’s sectional ownership was established as to each specific part of the instant building, which had independence in structural structure and use since its new construction.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the act of division

2. Of the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the allegation that the time when the designated party 3 and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) acquired the Defendant’s shares in the instant land in sequential order is a bona fide third party under the proviso of Article 20(3) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Act”), even if the time of acquiring the Defendant’s shares in the instant land after the establishment of sectional ownership, and the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide third party under the proviso of Article 20(3) of the

In addition, the defendant's assertion that the acquisition of shares by the designated party 3 and the plaintiff's acquisition of shares is null and void in violation of the main sentence of Article 20 (2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act cannot be viewed as being unacceptable in violation of the principle of good faith. Thus, the ground of appeal

3. 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 on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)