The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The facts which have been recognized in a civil case, even though they are not detained in a judgment of other civil cases, etc. in a civil trial, are valuable evidence unless there are special circumstances, and thus, it shall not be rejected without reasonable reasons.

(1) In cases where a co-owner’s co-ownership registration is made at the rate corresponding to the size of each sectional ownership for convenience, the mutual title trust relationship between co-ownership registration and sectionally owned co-ownership relationship between co-ownership owners is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da51372, Mar. 12, 1993; 2008Da92312, Sept. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, in cases where the location and size of one building are specified, and at least two persons own separate sections in terms of structural use, and the size of one building is not specified, or where independent ownership is not acknowledged in terms of structural use, among co-owners, the agreement is made to the effect that each sectional owner’s co-ownership registration is a mutual title trust relationship or sectionally owned co-ownership relationship of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Ma26333, Jun. 15, 2001; 2006Da841710).

Even if general co-ownership relationship is established, mutual title trust relationship with co-ownership registration or sectionally owned co-ownership relationship with the building can not be said to exist.

In addition, it is legitimate to determine that a person having a majority's share in the co-owned building should exclusively use and benefit from a specific part of the co-owned building. However, even if the specific part is within the area equivalent to his/her share ratio, the co-owners are entitled to use and benefit from all the co-owners, including a majority share holder, if the other co-owners have share but do not use and benefit from all the other co-owners.