[1] Whether the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of shares in a site owned by the purchaser of the share in the site with the section for exclusive use constitutes the right to use the site under the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

[2] In a case where a successful bid is made for only a section of exclusive ownership prior to the registration of transfer of ownership to the share of a site, whether the previous owner who registered the right to a site after the successful bid is recognized as a right to claim

[1] According to Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, the right to use a site is a right that a sectional owner has on the site of a building in order to own a section for exclusive use, and therefore it is not necessarily necessary to hold ownership, but at least the right to own a section for exclusive use. It does not constitute the right to use a site under the same Act, such as the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the seller who purchased the share of the site together with a sectioned building and the seller who purchased the

[2] If the first sectional owner who purchased a sectioned building did not acquire the right to use the site and other right to use the site, as the successful bidder does not acquire the right to use the site and other right to own the section of exclusive ownership, since the successful bidder falls under the sectional owner who did not have the right to use the site and the right to use the site, and only after the ownership of the section of exclusive ownership was lost, the successful bidder falls under the sectional owner who did not have the right to use the site and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the share to the section of exclusive ownership by selling the section of exclusive ownership to Eul and completing the registration of ownership transfer only with respect to the section of exclusive ownership under the name of Eul, even though the ownership was registered under the name of Eul, based on the right to collateral that was established against the section of exclusive ownership, and as the successful bidder does not have the right to request the removal of the section of exclusive ownership by the successful bidder under Article 7 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 186 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 7 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 358 of the

[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da12722 delivered on August 22, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3232), Supreme Court Decision 95Da40465 delivered on November 29, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 161)

Newly High Court Decision 200Do1416 decided May 1, 200

South Korean People's Republic of Korea (Attorney Han-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na27003 delivered on February 9, 1996

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's right to use the above aggregate building constructed by the above association as a member of the non-party 1's employees' association, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 12, 1986 only with respect to the building of this case, which is the section for exclusive use, and sold the plaintiff's share in the building of this case and the land of this case on February 11, 1989 without completing the registration of ownership transfer. On March 8, 191, the plaintiff registered the ownership transfer registration on the building of this case under his name with respect to the non-party 1's right to use the building of this case and the land of this case for which the plaintiff was not entitled to the right to use the above aggregate building of this case. The plaintiff was disqualified from the plaintiff's right to use the land of this case on December 8, 1992, which is equivalent to the plaintiff's right to use the land of this case.

2. The right to use site under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings is a right that a sectional owner holds on the site of a building in order to own a section for exclusive use (see Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings). Thus, although it is not necessarily necessary to date ownership, at least to own a section for exclusive use, it is a right that holds on the site of a building in order to own a section for exclusive use. It does not constitute the right to use site, such as the right to claim ownership transfer registration

As determined by the court below, if Park Jong-do, the first sectional owner of the building of this case, did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the share of the site of this case, and the defendant did not obtain ownership with respect to the building of this case because he did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the share of the building of this case, and as the plaintiff did not acquire ownership as to the site of this case because he did not grant the plaintiff the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the share of the site of this case until the acquisition of the building of this case by successful bid, the defendant did not acquire the right to use the site of this case as a right to own the building of this case, unless the plaintiff acquired the right to use the site of this case.

Ultimately, in this case, the defendant constitutes a sectional owner who does not have the right to use site and the plaintiff is entitled to seek removal of the building in this case as the owner of the land's share, and thus, can request the defendant to sell the sectional ownership at the market price under Article 7 of the Aggregate Buildings Act. Thus, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's exercise of the right to sell sectional ownership in this case does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles under the Aggregate Buildings Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part pointing 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 Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)