(a) Whether the front glass wall of the commercial building is the section for common use;

(b) Whether the owners of the heated stores in a commercial building may seek the closure of the entrance door from the owners of the heated stores who have opened the entrance at the front of the part of the individual store; and

A. Props, roof, outer walls, basic structures, etc. necessary to maintain the safety or appearance of a building in an aggregate building do not constitute the object of sectional ownership, as they are offered for all or some of sectional owners' common use. As long as the outer wall of a building is concerned with concrete or brick, it does not vary depending on its material, such as whether it was favorable to whether it was a concrete or brick. Thus, in light of the structure, appearance, use, etc. of the whole commercial building and the first floor, the front wall of each shop where the owners of the heat stores individually installed an entrance is the common part as the outer wall necessary to maintain the safety or appearance of an aggregate building even if it concurrently serves as a shock window.

B. The act of opening an entrance on the glass wall, which is the section for common use of a building, constitutes the alteration of the section for common use, and thus, the decision of an assembly by a majority of not less than 3/4 of the sectional owners and voting rights is required to be made, and there is no assertion.There is no proof of proof as to the establishment of each entrance by the owners of the section for common use. Therefore, the alteration of the illegal section for common use by the owners of the section for common use. Therefore, the owners of the building after-sale stores, who are the sectional owners of the first floor of an aggregate building, may seek the closure of the entrance as the act of preservation, as the restoration to the original

Article 2 subparag. 3, subparagraph 4 of Article 2, Article 3 (1), Article 10, Article 15 (1) and Article 16 (1) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, Article 265 of the Civil Act

1. Supreme Court Decision 92Da32272 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1997);

Kim Sang-soo et al.

Defendant 1 and 12 others

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na12974 delivered on February 25, 1993

1. (a) The part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

B. Of the 722.845 square meters per floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 list, Defendant 1 had the prior entrance connecting each point of the 1,22.845 square meters of the building in the attached Table 1 list, Defendant 2, Defendant 3 had the prior entrance connecting each point of the 4,5 marks in the attached drawing, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 had the prior entrance connecting each point of the 6,7 marks in the same drawing, and the prior entrance connecting each point of the 8,9 marks in the same drawing, Defendant 6, and 7 had the prior entrance connecting each point of the 11,12 marks in the same drawing, Defendant 8, and 9 had the prior entrance connecting each point of the 14,15 marks in the same drawing, Defendant 10, and 11 had the prior entrance connecting each point of the 16,17 marks in the same drawing, Defendant 12, and Defendant 13 had the same drawings and the connecting each point of the 19,198.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them is the plaintiffs, and the remainder is the defendants' own burden.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the same judgment as the judgment of the court of first instance and the defendants shall be jointly and severally paid 5,000,000 won to each plaintiff, and 205,425 won per month to the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung and Hong-sik, 38,800 won per month to the plaintiff Cho Young-jin, 1,000 won per month to the plaintiff Kim Young-jin, 427,733 won per month to the plaintiff Park Young-jin, 982,80 won per month to the plaintiff Park Jong-jin, and 982,800 won per month to the plaintiff Park Jong-sik, and 1,728,000 won to the plaintiff Park Jong-Nam, and 1,728,000 won to the plaintiff Park Jong-Nam, respectively, from October 13, 1992 to the time each entrance is closed.

1. Factual basis

The facts of Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 6-1, evidence 5-2, evidence 6-1, evidence 7-1, evidence 24-1 through 7 (each monthly rent contract), evidence 51, evidence 57-1 through 14 (each rent contract), evidence 1-1, evidence 3-3 through 6 (each rent contract), evidence 4-1, evidence 4-2 (each rent sale contract), evidence 5-1, evidence 6-1, evidence 12-1 through 7 (each copy of register), evidence 12-7 (each rent contract), evidence 1-1, evidence 3-1, and evidence 4-1, evidence 5-2 (each rent sale contract), evidence 6-1, and evidence 12-1 through evidence 7 (each copy of register of witnesses), evidence 1-2, evidence 1-1, evidence 1-2, evidence 1-2, evidence 3-1, evidence 1-2-2, evidence 1-1-2-2-2, evidence.

A. A building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") begins with construction permission around May 30, 1990 on the 3 block no. 3 block no. 4, 1990 and completed registration of ownership transfer on September 2, 1991. The above building construction industry corporation entered into a sales contract with the non-party 1meras Co., Ltd. to sell ownership of each of the stores within the building of this case in advance before obtaining the construction permission for the above building, and the above 1meras Co., Ltd. had the general buyers sell each of the stores within the building of this case. The employees of the above 1meras Co., Ltd. enter the above 201 in the separate list No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 108, 100, 1000, 200, 300,000,0000,000,000,000).

B. On the first floor of the building of this case, the non-party Sung Construction Industry Co., Ltd., a construction contractor of the building of this case, has installed the entire entrance of the building of this case on both corners as shown in the annexed drawing, and the outer wall except the columns from the front floor of the building of this case is used for each shop, and no separate entrance is installed at that place. The building of this case was designed (No. 6) and constructed on the first floor with the entire first floor space without the partitionss by passage and by each shop, and the completion inspection was completed. The above Sungsung Construction Industry Co., Ltd., a sales agency of the above Sungsung Construction Industry Co., Ltd., a sales contract for each shop of this case was concluded on the first floor of the building of this case. After completion inspection on September 2, 191, the above Sung Construction Industry Co., Ltd., a building of this case, was sold to each party to this case by dividing the middle passage with the entrance of this case, and the building of this case was executed as the middle passage of each floor of this case.

C. Defendant 1, 12 (the part on the shop in the column 4), each of the instant buildings, leased each of the stores listed in the separate sheet No. 2 from Defendant 2, Defendant 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 (the part on the shop in the column 6-2), and Defendant 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13, who purchased one floor of the instant building, shall remodel each of the front glass walls of each of the stores owned or leased and possessed by the Defendants, with the consent of the owners of each of the said stores, and establish each entrance as described in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet around October 191 (the end of February 13, 192 in the case of Defendant 13).

D. The instant building is a hospital facility from the second to nine stories above ground due to retail stores, waterer stores, and multi-points, which are the third and third stories below ground, and part of the first floor above ground, and the second to the second floor above ground, and the tenth stories above ground were designated as a ethic educational institute. However, due to changes in the actual use in the sale process, the current underground floor, the first floor above ground, the numberer and retail stores on the first floor above ground, the second floor, restaurants, multiple rooms, etc., the second to nine stories, and the third to nine stories, the front of the instant building is a restaurant, and the third to nine stories are both large glass walls, and the first and second floors of the instant building are all large glass walls, and the first and second floors of the instant building are composed of five stories, which are being supported by the first floor and the second floor, and the part of the instant building can be entirely administered through this.

2. Determination on the closing of entrance and exit doors

In light of the above facts, the building of this case constitutes an aggregate building under the Multi-Unit Building Act. Props, roof, outer walls, basic structures, etc. necessary to maintain the safety or appearance of the building do not constitute the object of sectional ownership (Supreme Court Decision 92Da3272 delivered on June 8, 193), and as long as external walls of the building were favorable to whether they were concrete or bricks, it does not vary depending on the quality of the building. Thus, in light of the whole building of this case and the structure, appearance, use of each floor of this case, each of the Defendants’ shops installed an entrance individually, and the building of this case were installed as an entrance of this case, and the building of this case was installed as an entrance of this case by the 10th unit owner and the building of this case, and the building of this case was established as an entrance of this case by the 10th unit owner and the building of this case, and the alteration of the building's basic structure of each section of common use under the Multi-Unit Building Act, which belongs to the 10th unit of this case.

The defendants argued that when entering into a sales contract with the above Sung Construction Industry Corporation, the sales agent, which was the sales agent of the above Sungsung Construction Industry Corporation, on behalf of the defendants, on April 20, 199 to the 30th of the same month, the construction permission for the building of the building of this case, the entrance can be established under the condition that the entrance can be set up freely on the front wall of each shop, which is the exclusive section for exclusive use of the defendants. Thus, the defendants cannot respond to the claim of this case. However, according to the provisions of Articles 15 (1) and 10 (2) of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act, the matters concerning the change of common use area shall be decided by a resolution of a meeting of at least 3/4 of the sectional owners and voting rights, and as such, it cannot be otherwise determined by the regulations, even if the above Mei Construction Industry Corporation, at the time of the purchase of each of the above stores, cannot establish the entrance in front of the above building, it cannot be concluded that the above construction permission of this case was not completed.

3. Determination as to the claim for damages

원고들은, 피고들이 임의로 공용부분인 이 사건 건물의 앞 유리벽에 출입문을 개설한 불법행위로 말미암아 원래 고객이 통행하기로 예정된 중앙통로쪽은 뒷문 또는 샛문으로 사용됨에 그치고 그쪽으로 주방을 설치하거나 짐을 쌓아 둠으로써 그 곳 출입구는 고객이 출입하는 진열대로서의 기능이 저하되고 있을 뿐만 아니라 일반고객들로 하여금 이 사건 건물 1층 후열에 원고들의 점포가 있다는 사실조차 알기 어렵게 하는 결과를 초래하여 고객들이 원고들의 점포에 접근하는 것을 구조적으로 제한시키고 있으며 또한 소외 성보건설산업주식회사로부터 분양받아 제3자에게 점포를 임대하려고 하였던 원고들로서는 피고들의 위와 같은 불법행위로 인하여 제3자에 대한 임대차계약 체결에 곤란을 받게 되어 여러 모로 투자효율을 충분히 발휘하지 못하게 될 상황에 이르게 되었으므로 피고들로서는 피고들의 불법행위로 인하여 원고들이 입게 된 점포 시가의 비정상적인 하락분과 임대가격의 하락분을 손해로 배상할 책임이 있다고 주장한다.

However, as seen earlier, the alteration of the section for common use that opened the entrance like the above recognition by the Defendants constitutes a violation of the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act. However, it is difficult to deem it as a tort immediately in relation to the Plaintiffs, and even if it constitutes a domestic tort, it is difficult to deem that the damage occurred to the Plaintiffs as alleged below due to the opening of the entrance by the Defendants.

In other words, the appraisal result of the appraisal by the first instance court is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiffs suffered damages as alleged by the Defendants’ entrance, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, in full view of the structure and appearance of the building of this case, the use of each floor and the circumstances such as the use status of the first floor as above, since the Defendants opened the entrance as above, it cannot be concluded that the Defendants’ establishment of the entrance at the heat store and the second floor is due to the difference between the heat store and the heat store, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the customers of the Plaintiffs’ stores open the entrance only at the heat store and the second floor. Since it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ establishment of the entrance was difficult for the customers to easily believe that there was a decrease in the advertising effect of the Plaintiffs’ stores due to their display and purchase on the road immediately after entering the Defendants’ stores and return to the intermediate passage, it is difficult to see that there was a decrease in the advertising effect of the Plaintiff’s stores, and in particular, the building of this case is more likely to have easily known that the entrance of the 10th floor.

4. Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' entrance door closure claim is accepted for the reasons, and the part of the damages claim is dismissed for the reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair for the different conclusions, part of the plaintiffs' appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiffs' entrance closure claim, is revoked, and as above, the court order the defendants to close their entrances. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed for the reasons, and they are dismissed for the reasons, and the main text of Article 96, Article 89, Article 92 and Article 93 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the costs of lawsuit and the provisional execution is not attached to the order (attached Form omitted).

Judges at least the same rank (Presiding Judge)