Where it is claimed that part of a specific store of the market building has been sold, but it is not installed to be the object of sectional ownership, the effect of registration of co-ownership transfer according to the ratio of the total area of the building.

In a case where the Plaintiff’s 5th 5th 5th 67th 1st 1st 1st 67th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2th 2002, which is claiming that the Plaintiff was sold in lots, did not exist in a state suitable for sectional ownership, the building that is the aggregate of the stores of the stores is registered as a whole, and where each sectional owner acquired the ownership of each specific part of the buildings and title trust registration in its internal relation, it is difficult to regard that the sectional ownership is registered as a sectional ownership registration at the same time as the specific sectional ownership is difficult.

Articles 215 and 262 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Lee Dong-he et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 88Na6853 delivered on December 15, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1, the husband of the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the non-party 2, who purchased 5.5 square meters adjacent to the passage among the first floor of the market building constructed at the time of February 26, 1979. The non-party 2, the non-party 1, the plaintiff's husband, entered into an agreement with the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the 6, the share ownership.

However, as acknowledged by the court below, at the time when the plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase 5.5 square meters of a store through her husband's landization, there has been no change in the store, and according to the records, the market construction company did not establish a separate store at the time of completion of the construction of the building and set up 67 square meters of the 11 square meters store on its location and its adjacent part, and it is known that it was sold to the defendant 1.5 square meters of the 67 store, which the plaintiff claimed within 11 square meters of the original adjudication, that it was sold to the defendant 2.5 square meters of the remaining 5.5 store, which is the object of divided ownership. Thus, if the plaintiff acquired 5.5 square meters of the store as the object of divided ownership and the registration of divided ownership is difficult to view that the plaintiff acquired 11 square meters of the 11th store as the object of divided ownership and the registration of divided ownership could not be seen as having been completed as a specific sectional ownership.

In this case, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff received the transfer registration of 6585.02/18/18/60 of 6585/18/11 of the share transfer registration and received the transfer registration of 36.36/10 of 6585/11 of the share registration equivalent to the 111-day share of the Defendant YAD shop. According to the register of the register, it is confirmed that there is a person who did not register the share as the owner who purchased the store in lots. Thus, since it is apparent that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who transferred the shares to the Plaintiff, made the transfer registration of 2-year share registration, it is difficult to view

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the sale and purchase of partitioned ownership and the registration method thereof. The appeal pointing this out is with merit.

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 Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)