집합건물법상 상가건물 구분소유에 관한 고찰

Abstract

With economic development and urbanization of the population, there have been increased complicated disputes in the various types of aggregate buildings, particularly in commercial buildings. Openness is one of important factors in commercial buildings for business. Isolation of building from other parts in the structure independence can be a factor of prevention from business, a basic role of commercial buildings. Therefore, instead of sturdy boundary barriers in space, it is important to divide section by the device on the bottom in opened big box stores without partition for each section. In commercial building, which is frequently used incorporated or separately dependent on its social value or usage, the change of building structure is temporary and removable for the use of them. In this case, several differences in the real utilization of division inside the building from transcripts of the building register or building book amy cause some problems like nullity in the divided ownership or rights of mortgagee holder. The divided ownership for commercial buildings which lost independence by removing structure to devide physical space of a small size stores or offices temporarily should be allowed to owners. Although there was establishment of the divided ownership by structure independence for the social and economic requirement in the Article 2(1) of the Aggregate Building Act, there are still many problems caused by the regulation to restrict practical use and space of buildings. There is the deregulation of structure independence in only facilities of divided stores for sale and transportation. Although it is frequent to make flexible spaces for the users without removing original partitions in the office buildings, it is not reasonable not to allow to keep ownership for the buildings with optimum level required by the law. Because the divided stores with optimum structure independence are transacted in practical markets, it is wrongful that small sized stores with less than 1,000㎡ in bottom area are not recognized as divided stores. Therefore, it is suggested that the divided ownership should be admitted for the buildings which keep the definite proof with the legal partition structure and plane figure, regardless of their area size and use.