beta
Text
1. The Defendants are each indicated in the attached Form No. 2, 11, 12, 13, 3, and 2 among the first floor of the Dopopo-si D Apartment Complex, Militarypo-si.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 29, 2004 with respect to No. 106 among D Apartment Complex Building Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), which is an aggregate building. Defendant B is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on Nov. 5, 1998 with respect to No. 109 (hereinafter “No. 109”), the area of exclusive ownership among the instant commercial buildings, the area of which is 14.4 square meters, and Defendant C operates the repair point of the trade name “E” on Nov. 23, 2007 by leasing No. 109 from Defendant B on Nov. 23, 2007.
B. The exterior under subparagraph 109 of this case has walls installed in the upper part with glass and board, etc., and walls are installed in the lower part. Among them, the part (b) part (c) of the attached Form No. 2, 11, 12, 13, 13, 3, and 2 of the attached Form No. 109 is connected in order to each of the following points: (a) part (c) of the attached Form No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 29, 27, 8, 67, and 21 of the attached Form No. 109; (b) part (c) of the attached Form No. 1, which connects each point (c) part (c) of the attached Form No. 21, 231,39,28, 2, and 21,4.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 7, the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the result of the measurement entrustment to the Vice Governor of the Korea Land and Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff installed the instant facility on the first floor, which is the common use area of the instant commercial building, without permission, and occupied the said corridor exclusively. This constitutes a change in the common use area of an aggregate building, and thus, the Plaintiff is below the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.