1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where the part concerning “Defendant” as stated in Paragraph (2) 2 of the judgment of the first instance as “Plaintiff” is deemed to be “Plaintiff,” and therefore, this part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant occupies and uses the store of this case without any title. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to deliver it to the plaintiff who is the owner of the store of this case.

The defendant asserts that, among the three floors of the building of this case, the third floor of the building of this case lost structural independence by removing the floor boundary marks or partitions for each partition store, and thus, the building number signs, etc. loses structural independence. Thus, the right to divided ownership for the store of this case owned by the plaintiff is not subject to divided ownership. Even if the right to divided ownership is recognized, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the management body representative committee as to the store of this case, and even if the above committee did not have legitimate authority from the plaintiff at the time, the plaintiff was ratified thereafter or the plaintiff's expression representative liability is established, so the defendant has legitimate authority

B. First of all, we examine whether the divided ownership of the instant store exists.

In order for a part of one building to be the object of sectional ownership to be the object of sectional ownership, not only the part is used but also the structural part is distinguishable from other parts. The structural independence is required because it is necessary to clarify the scope of physical control over the object which mainly becomes the object of ownership. Thus, if it is impossible to determine the scope of the object of sectional ownership by structural division, the structural independence cannot be said to exist.

In addition, the physical requirements are adequate as the object of the partitioned ownership.