logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단117326
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in the absence of dispute between the parties or in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

On August 29, 2003, the plaintiffs purchased from the defendant 513 Dong 1503, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/2 co-ownership share.

B. The plaintiffs purchased apartment houses are called "E" normally. At around 1975, the non-party Korea National Housing Corporation (the Korea Land Corporation is changed to the Korea Land Corporation) received construction approval plans from the Minister of Construction and Transportation to build 23 square-type apartment buildings 2,18 households, 1,650 households, commercial-use apartment buildings 25 square-type apartment buildings, and ancillary and welfare facilities, and completed the construction project on June 23, 1978, and constructed a children's swimming pool and a refining facility, such as each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the apartment complex (hereinafter "the real estate in this case").

C. The Defendant had a co-ownership share in the instant real estate, but only transferred the ownership of the said apartment to the Plaintiffs, and did not transfer a co-ownership share in the instant real estate.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The instant real estate is a welfare facility for the occupants of the apartment, and is accompanied by the disposition of the section for exclusive use, since it is a common part belonging to the owners of each section for exclusive use. As long as the Plaintiffs purchased an apartment from the Defendant, the Defendant’s share in the instant real estate is naturally transferred to the Plaintiffs.

The plaintiff's assertion is based on the premise that the real estate in this case is a common area under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act").

First of all, Article 3 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides for the common use of all or some of sectional owners, such as corridors, stairs that lead to several sections for exclusive use.

arrow