Distinguish All Buildings, Part Of The Infringement Case Analysis

With the high-rises springing up almost everywhere, the building separating ownership becomes more and more popular. The building separating ownership is a kind of real right which comes into being with the development of the society. Since the property law in China was formulated and enacted relatively late, legal ground has been absent for a long time. In consequence, disputes which were involved with building separating ownership were, however, settled by resorting to neighboring relations. At present, the building separating ownership system has been established through legislation and relevant judicial interpretations have also been made in order to make the system more maneuverable and complete.Although the system is already quite complete in China, yet in judicial practice, many judges are neither able to apply it nor differentiate it from neighboring relations. What's worse, some of them regard the two kinds of legal conceptions as the same, and employ them in the same case or even apply them indiscriminately. Neighboring relation has long been established by legislation in china. As a result, both theoretical research and practical use of it have been mature. In contrast, the establishment of building separating ownership system was only an event that occurred in recent years. Therefore, there are an inadequate number of experiences to refer to. Under such circumstance, this paper will analyze the chosen case from the perspective the building separating ownership system, in the hope of providing some contributive advice to the settlement of disputes involved with this system in practice.This paper is divided into five parts. The first part is the introductions to the chosen case. The second part summarizes several questions that the author thinks of worth researching. The third part details the reasons why building separating ownership should be referred to in this case. The fourth part, which is the central point and thus the major part of this paper, focuses on the analysis of the case from the perspective of building separating ownership. Firstly, this part gives the definition of building separating ownership. And then this part introduces some theories concerning exclusive right and the right of common, and then presents in detail the application of these theories in the case. The last part is comments on the court's verdict on this case, elaborating on the fixed application of the building separating ownership and neighboring relations to this case.