beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including attached parts), except where the defendant makes an additional decision as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance pursuant to paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Of the instant parking lot, the parking management part of the instant parking lot falls under the section for common use as the rest and waiting space of parking personnel who manage the entire parking lot. The parking space part of the instant parking lot also falls under the section for common use as the space used as a public parking lot for the last 30 years from the time of occupancy without meeting the independence in structural use. Therefore, since the instant parking lot cannot be the object of sectional ownership, it cannot be recognized as a claim for prevention of interference premised on the Plaintiff’s ownership. 2) The Defendant is engaged in the legitimate management of the instant building as a management body of the instant building, and there is no concern about any interference with the instant parking lot, and there is no concern about future interference.
B. Determination 1) Whether a portion of an aggregate building is provided for the common use of all or part of sectional owners should, in principle, be determined by the objective purpose according to the structure of the building. However, if there is an agreement among the owners of a special group, it can be viewed differently.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da9269 delivered on February 28, 1995, etc.). In the case of an underground parking lot of a commercial building which is an aggregate building, if the building is excluded from the section for common use under the consent of the sectional owners who purchased it by special agreement, etc. on the sales contract and if it is sold separately from the section for common use in a structural way or in use
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da44675 delivered on December 26, 1995, etc.).