상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
158662.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

집합건물의 일부공용부분 판단에 관한 고찰

A study on the standard of judgment of section for partial common use of condominium building - Supreme Court Decision 2019Da294947 Decided January 14, 2021 -

DOI : 10.34267/cblj.2021.32.1.205
  • 71

According to court statistics, the number of condominium buildings in Korea was 17,244,047 as of April 2021, and the number of owners of f condominium buildings was 19,809,165. And the number is increasing every year. As a result, various forms of disputes arise between owners of condominium buildings. In particular, section for common use where the distinction is not clear, such as in the subject judgment, can be easily exposed to disputes. In practice, problems arise that are directly related to the economic interests of each sectional owner. This is because the obligation for management (such as payment of administrative expenses) is borne by all of the sectional owners, and sections for common use are borne by the sectional owners who share section for common use. Article 10 of Act on ownership and management of condominium buildings stipulates that “The section for common use is under the co-ownership of all sectional owners: Provided, That the section for common use which is obviously provided only for common use by a certain sectional owners belongs to the co-ownership of those sectional owners.” However, Act on ownership and management of condominium buildings does not mention by what criteria to distinguish between section for common use and section for partial common use. As a result, different judgments are made in each case. The rooftop of apartments subject to the review of the ruling was generally understood as a section for common use, but the first trial ruled that it was a section for common use, the second trial ruled that it was a section for common use, and the third trial judged that it was a section for common use. In this study, I reviewed on the standard of judgment of section for partial common use around court precedents. And then I present interpretations of reasonable criteria under current law and critically consider the conclusions of the decision.

Ⅰ. 사실관계

Ⅱ. 법원의 판단

Ⅲ. 평석

로딩중