Earticle

本文以中国法为基础，分析了中国法中业主共同管理权的概念和 法律性质，说明了私人自治原则在业主共同管理权行使中的基础地 位，介绍了中国法中业主共同管理权行使中业主大会以及业主委员会 的成立、议事、决议、法律地位等方面的具体规则，讨论了在现实运 行中存在的法律问题。

Das 'Korenaische Gesetz über das Eigentum am kollektiven Gebäude und dessen Verwaltung" (abgekürzt: Kollektivgebäudegetz, EkGVG) enthält keine Regelung über die Begründung des Wohnungseigentums. Das deutsche Pendant, 'Gesetz über das Wohnungseigentum und das Dauerwohnrecht"regelt aber ausdrücklich, dass das Wohnungseigentum durch Vertrag der Miteigentümer oder durch Teilung begründet wird. § 1 Kollektivgebäudegesetz(EkGVG) lautet: "Wenn strukturell abgerenzte Teile eines Gebäudes als selbständige Einheiten benutzt werden können, dann können die einzelnen Gebäudeteile zum Objekt des Eigentums werden." Die ausdrücklich geregelten objektiven Tatbestandsmerkmale für Begründung des Teileigentums sind demzufolge wie folgt: 1. Es handelt sich um ein Gebäude. 2. Die Gebäudeteile sind strukturell abgrenzbar (strukturelle Seblständigkeit). 3. Die Gebäudeteile können als selbständige Einheit benutzt werden (Nutzungsselbständigkeit). Die einhellige Meinung in der Rechtsprechung und Literatur fordert darüberhinaus ungeschriebene subjektive Elemente wie das Vorhandensein eines Abgrenzungswillens. Umstritten ist demgegenüber über die Erforderlichkeit einer Eintragung. Weil in den letzten Jahren strukturell komplizierte Gebäude, die über eine Luftbrücke oder unterirdisch verbunden sind, sehr häufig gebaut werden, ist die Abgrenzung eines Gebäudes von dem anderen schwrierig geworden. Wann ist ein Gebäude als ein Gebäude zu betrachten Dieser Aufsatz wird sich unter anderem mit folgenden Fragen befassen: Wann ist ein Gebäude wirklich ein Gebäude? Als Kriterien werden unter anderem folgende genannt: 1. die Eindeutigkeit der Grenze 2. die Abgrenzung der Gebäudeteile 3. die Unmittelbarkeit des Weges zur Aussenwelt 4. das Vorhandensein der Einrichtungen zur Sondernutzung 5. das Nichtvorhandensein der Einrichtungen zur Gemeinnutzung. Im Hinblick auf ein Geschäftsgebäude stellt sich aber die Frage, ob eine vollkommene Abgrenzung erforderlich ist. Dieser Aufsatz wird über diese Themen hinaus auch noch die Fragen nach dem Abgrenzungswillen, der Erforderlichkeit der Eintragung mit behandeln.

In the re-building of congregate buildings, requirements of reconstruction building of congregate buildings under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings enumerate not only destruction and damage of building, but also other circumstances such as unreasonable cost which is needed for its repair, restoration, or management, or a remarkable increase of utility. Whereas, requirements of resolution for re-building are only guaranteed by a majority not less than four fifths of both the sectional owners and voting rights by the management body meeting. This thesis puts emphasis on the justification of the management body meeting in view of the exercise of resolution for re-building of the management body meeting and the exercise of disposition to break down the existing building and to use its site for a new building. Futhermore, this paper indicates the matters regarding necessary resolution by the management body meeting and convocation followed by lawful procedure, concrete matters of cost sharing and allotment of new building, and stipulated security by a majority not less than four fifths of both the sectional owners and voting rights.

In general, the contract for the sale of Apartment Housing may be said to be a combination of the sale contract for assignment of the separate ownership of the aggregate building to be subsequently completed and the construction contract for completion of the said aggregate building. Thus, the contract for the sale of Apartment Housing has the nature of both a sale contract and a construction contract. Therefore, Housing Act provides that the provisions regarding the contractor′s warranty liability shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of the seller of Apartment Housing for the purpose of protecting purchasers. Accordingly, purchasers should be entitled to request repair and replacement under the warranty clause or dissolution of the contract, claim damages or reduction of payment, etc.

At the resolution for re-building of congregate buildings, there occurs a conflict of interests between the approval and/or disapproval of each sectional owner. Accordingly, it's necessary to protect the minority of the disapprovals from the majority of the approvals. This thesis stresses the following points as interpretation about the requirements of the resolution for re-building in the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. (1) The requirements of building which are tantamount to the requirements of resolution for re-building are destruction and damage of building, other circumstances such as unreasonable cost which is needed for its repair and restoration, or management compared with the price of building, and a remarkable increase of utility. However, each requirement is independent. Accordingly, these requirements should not be grasped connectedly. (2) In the case where the destruction of the part of building which is tantamount to the part not more than half the price of building, the resolution for re-building should be confined to the resolution of premise requirement under Paragraph (1) of Article 47 in the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. (3) The elapse of a considerable time after the construction of building should be the premise of judgment for reconstruction building as a minimum requirement of resolution for re-building. (4) The requirements of reconstruction building in the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and the requirements of reconstruction business objectives in the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents are different. Accordingly, both requirements are not affected by each other.

It was possible to sell, lease, pledge or inherit the private fields which were acknowledged as proprietary possessive rights, however, at the outset of Joseon (Lee Dynasty) foundation, all other disposals of land than inheritance were restricted because it was the beginning time of implementing despotic reform through Gwajeonlaw. Land transactions were made in secret in spite of prohibition order and the transaction money was forfeited by the governmental bodies if revealed. Nevertheless, most of those who sold their land were in very poor and hard situations so that they had to dispose their land to raise money for their parents' business or reimbursement of debt. It was too severe for the authorities to confiscate sales money of land from such poor people and also there was a limit for the authorities to completely prohibit social practise of proprietory ownership which had continued from the previous age. In March of Sejong 6th year (1412), the society of Joseon raised a suggestion to change regulations on field sales prohibition in order to allow sales of fields and finally, the Dynasty started to permit land sales. This means that the total prohibition regulations of land sales under Gwajeonlaw was collapsed and then legitimate sales, though limited, started to be allowed. Meantime, it was a principle to acknowledge and verify ownership of land in writing during Joseon Age and such acknowledgement was confirmed and protected by the government and any dispute in connection with land ownership could be settled by resolution criteria prepared by the government. Such criteria include not only official books such as Jeonan, Yangan, Sujoan and Yeonggi but also private ones such as title documents. Official books including Sujoan as well as Yangan did not indicate changes of owners but showed existing owners only. Usually individuals proved his ownership with a certificate like Ipan, Ipji or Jongmun issued by the authorities or with a private document. Therefore, it was important to record that ownership transfer was made legitimately and truly and then to report the authorities about such fact to obtain certificates on such ownership transfer owing to sales or inheritance. Concentrated upon Mungi which was a contractual document proving ownership and a drafting system which needed a report to the authorities to get their notarial act after signing a contract, we have looked into the ownership verification system of our traditional law which had been implemented before our modern real estate registration system was introduced. Necessity of confirmation and control of ownership transfer required a new verification system owing to disorder of land system at the end of Joseon Age, and there occurred land ownership problems in residential area of foreign people since port opening in 1876. In this connection, a new system of housecotract and landcontact existed from 1893 to 1906, which could be said as the system during transition period of modernization of our registration system.