Requirements for a part of the building to become the object of sectional ownership, and whether the purchaser acquires the ownership of a part of the building which does not meet the physical requirements suitable for the object of sectional ownership (negative)

In order for a part of one building to become the object of sectional ownership, its part must be independent from other parts in its use as well as structural structure, and there may be differences in the strictness of structural judgment depending on the situation of use or form of use. However, structural independence is required because the scope of physical control over the object which mainly becomes the object of ownership is required due to the need to clarify the scope of physical control. Thus, structural independence cannot be said to exist if the scope of the object of sectional ownership can not be determined by division of structure. Moreover, part of a building that fails to meet physical requirements, which is the object of sectional ownership, is registered as an independent sectional ownership under the building management ledger, and is registered as a separate sectional ownership on the register, and is registered as the object of sectional ownership on the register, and has paid the purchase price after obtaining permission for sale based on such registration, even if such registration is in itself null and void.

Article 215 of the Civil Act, Article 1 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings

Supreme Court Order 2008Ma696 Decided September 11, 2008

The succeeding Intervenor of the Bank of Korea (Law Firm Hanyang, Attorneys Kim Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the succeeding Intervenor)

Incheon District Court Order 2008Ra478 dated July 28, 2009

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In order for a part of one building to become the object of sectional ownership, its part must be independent from other parts in its use as well as structural aspect, and there may be differences in the strictness of structural judgment depending on the situation of use or form of use. However, structural independence is required mainly because the scope of physical control over the object of ownership can not be determined by division of structure. Thus, structural independence cannot be said to exist if the scope of the object of sectional ownership cannot be determined by division of structure. In addition, part of a building that failed to meet physical requirements, which is the object of sectional ownership, is registered as an independent sectional ownership under the building management ledger, and is registered as a separate sectional ownership, and is registered as the object of sectional ownership under the building management ledger and paid the purchase price after obtaining permission for sale based on such registration, since its registration becomes null and void in itself (see Supreme Court Order 208Ma696, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.).

On the other hand, Article 1-2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Act”), Articles 1-2 (1) and 2 of the Regulations on the Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks under Article 1-2 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Regulations on the Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks”) provide that with respect to a commercial building within a certain scope, a building may become an object of sectional ownership by relaxing structural independence requirements by “satisfying a clearly recognizable sign on the floor and attaching a building number marks assigned to each sectioned store on a solid basis.” Article 60 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that the competent authority in charge of the building ledger shall refuse to apply for registration of aggregate building register and register it on the general building register if it is deemed that the current status of the building is not in compliance with the provisions of Article 1

According to the records, the real estate in this case was not independent in its structure, and it was found that it did not meet the relaxed requirements provided for in Article 1-2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations on Boundary Marks and Building Number Marks. In light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that even if the real estate in this case was registered as a separate building independent of the aggregate building management ledger, and the real estate injury was registered for the purpose of divided ownership, even if it was registered for the purpose of divided ownership, it cannot be the object of divided ownership. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, or by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, or regulations

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)