logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단55602
구분소유권매도
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiffs, based on the claim for sale of sectional ownership under Article 7 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”), seek against the Defendant the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the newly constructed household of this case”) which is a section for exclusive use.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the exercise of the right to demand sale of sectional ownership is a right to seek removal of the newly constructed household of this case, which is a section for exclusive use, and that the above removal is a change in the current state of the site of an aggregate building which is a common property and thus the consent of all co-owners is required. Therefore, the lawsuit for sale of sectional ownership is an essential co-litigation, and that the lawsuit of this case

However, according to Article 7 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, if a sectional owner who has no right to use site exists, a person who has the right to seek removal of the section for exclusive use can claim that the sectional owner sell his/her sectional ownership at the market price. Therefore, a site owner of an aggregate building is a person who has the right to seek removal of the section for exclusive use.

Co-owners are each act of preserving jointly-owned properties, and can seek removal of a building installed without legitimate possession or use right on the land which is the jointly-owned property. Thus, a lawsuit seeking sale of sectional ownership cannot be deemed to constitute an inherent indispensable co-litigation for which all the right holders of the land in the aggregate building should become a party to the lawsuit. Thus, the defendant's defense

2. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) D on December 14, 2005, as well as 1,427.2 square meters (hereinafter the above two parcels are added) in Gangnam-gu Seoul E-gu and 10 square meters in F. 14,427 square meters (hereinafter the above two parcels are referred to as “the instant land”).

) A total of 12 households, an aggregate building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as "the aggregate building").

arrow