[1] The case holding that the front glass wall of the first floor of an aggregate building is a common area

[2] The case denying liability for damages caused by the decline in the value of a store for the remaining sectional owners of the first floor and the bad business progress in the case where some sectional owners of the first floor of the commercial condominiums set up their individual entrance doors on the front glass wall of the second floor which is the common use area

[1] The case holding that the front glass wall of the first floor of an aggregate building, which is a neighborhood living facility of the third floor and the tenth floor above ground, is a common part of the building in light of the structure, appearance, use, etc. of the entire building and the first floor, and is necessary for maintaining the safety or exterior of the building in question, under the premise that it does not become an object of sectional ownership, as a part provided for all or some of sectional owners' common use of the building in the structure, such as props, roof, outer walls, and basic structures, etc.

[2] In a case where the owners of the first floor of the commercial aggregate building filed a claim for damages against the owners of the second floor on the ground that the owner of the second floor of the commercial aggregate building had the entrance of the central passage, but the front glass wall, which is the common area, was remodeled to establish their individual entrance, and the owners of the second floor filed a claim for damages against the owners of the second floor on the ground that the establishment of such individual entrance did not constitute tort against the owners of the second floor, but the ordinary damages caused by the voluntary damage to the common area was equivalent to the repair cost necessary for the restoration to the original state

[1] Articles 2 and 3 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 10, 11, 12, and 15 of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da32272 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1997), Supreme Court Decision 94Da9269 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 147), the lower court's decision (Noh 1994-2, 379)

Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 12 others (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na17890 delivered on September 2, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Based on macro evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) the instant building was a three-story and ten-story neighborhood living facilities of the upper floor; (b) both sides of the aggregate building are large glass walls; and (c) the building construction contractor of the instant building originally installed the entire entrance of the first floor through the glass walls of the first floor; (d) the outer walls except the columns of the first floor of the building are one glass for each shop; (b) the outer walls of the first floor are installed within the first floor of the building; (c) the outer walls of the instant building were installed within the first floor without the door door; and (d) the building was designed and constructed in the outer space of the first floor and completed the completion inspection accordingly; and (e) the sales agent divided the building into middle passages, heating stores, and the second floor; and (e) the building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building structure or building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s front or building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’s building’

Considering the facts established by the court below in light of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above determination by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the distinction between the section for exclusive use and the section for common use in the aggregate building, such as the theory of lawsuit. There

On the second ground for appeal

The issue is that the portion of the glass wall of the building of this case can be used as a co-owner even if it is the common use area, so it should have determined the scope of using the glass wall in consideration of the co-ownership share of the sectional owners, but it should have determined the legitimacy of using the entrance, but the court below ordered the closure of the entrance. However, the court below's decision which ordered the closure of the entrance did not properly hold the entrance. However, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal due to the first ground for appeal, and it cannot be viewed as the use of the entrance in accordance with its use. Thus, the

2. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below's fact-finding that the employees of the selling agency could individually establish the entrance on the front wall of the pre-sale store at the time of sale is erroneous for the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence. However, if the relevant evidence is examined by the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law against the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no ground for appeal.

On the second ground for appeal

Although the plaintiffs asserted that the violation of the management rules occurs due to the acts of the defendants, it is difficult to view that the management rules of the plaintiffs' assertion made by the building builder of the building of this case are the management rules of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, and therefore, even if the acts of the defendants violate the management rules, the defendants cannot be held liable for nonperformance against the plaintiffs, and there is no ground to view that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to establish the above entrance. Thus, the above assertion is without merit and therefore, it is not reasonable to argue that the above assertion is justified.

On the third ground for appeal

The claim for damages of this case is that the Defendants sought compensation for damages caused by the decline in store value, business depression, etc. suffered by the Plaintiffs, the owners of the heating stores, by remodelling the front glass walls of each shop, even though there was the entrance of the central passage. According to the facts established by the court below, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have been obligated not to open a separate separate door in addition to the existing entrance, and in particular, the Defendants were subjected to deception that they could open an individual door from the parcelling-out agent, and therefore, there is no ground to deem it as constituting tort, and therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to be liable for damages, such as theory, to the Defendants.

Of course, the Defendants’ act of arbitrarily damaging the exterior wall of a building, which is a common area, should be deemed to be unlawful. However, the amount equivalent to the repair cost required for restitution, and the damages incurred due to the fall in the value of a heat store and the fall in the business, etc., as claimed by the Plaintiffs, cannot be deemed to be the damage in proximate causal relation

Therefore, although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the occurrence of liability for damages, such as theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument about this is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)