A. Defendant KimB

1) The registration of initial ownership completed by Busan District Court No. 6935 on January 29, 1983 with respect to the real property listed in [Attachment List No. 1]

2) The registration of initial ownership completed by Busan District Court No. 6552 on January 27, 1983 with respect to the real property listed in [Attachment List No. 2] ;

execution of each procedure for cancellation registration;

B. The defendant Republic of Korea has expressed his/her intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of each of the above registrations of preservation of ownership.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

A. Defendant KimB newly constructed the 0th underground floor and the 0th apartment building of the 00th apartment building of the 00th apartment building of the 0th apartment building of the 0th apartment building of the 0th apartment building of the 0th apartment building of the 0th apartment building of the 0th apartment building of the 1983. At the time, Defendant KimB completed the completion inspection on January 10, 1983 and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in its name. As to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the 1 of the 1983 apartment building of the 2nd apartment building of the 1983 Busan District Court as to January 29, 1983 and the real estate listed in Paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 of the 211 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2nd apartment building of the 2nd apartment building of the 2nd apartment building of the 1983.

B. Defendant KimB filed an application for a building permit for the instant aggregate building and received a completion inspection, and the instant underground building was designated as a shelter, and the instant building No. 211 was designated as a management office, and accordingly, the details are also indicated in the register of each building of this case as the "blick" and the "office".

C. On March 22, 1982, the sectional owners of the instant condominiums establishedCC Co., Ltd. in order to operate the market in the instant condominiums. On the aggregate building ledger of the instant apartment buildings,CC had been registered as the owner, andCC Co., Ltd and thereafter registered under the special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts had paid the management costs and property tax of each of the instant condominiums with the membership fees received from the sectional owners.

D. Each of the instant buildings is used as goods storage, shelters, conference rooms, resting rooms, etc. from the time of the occupancy of sectional owners.

E. Of the instant aggregate buildings, the registration of a site ownership has been made for sales facilities, etc. owned by other sectional owners, but the registration of a site ownership has not been made for each of the instant buildings.

F. On July 5, 1995, the Republic of Korea attached each of the instant buildings on July 5, 1995 on the grounds of delinquency in payment, such as the transfer income tax of Defendant KimB, and completed the attachment registration under the Busan District Court Ordinance No. 28416, Jul. 10, 105.

G. Since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the commercial building No. 8 among the above condominiums on December 15, 2005, the Plaintiff has been doing commercial activities in the above condominiums as the representative of the market merchant association until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Between the Plaintiff and Defendant KimB: constructive confession

Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 13-1 through 25, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

In light of the above facts, according to Article 2 subparag. 5, Article 22-3, Article 23 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191), Articles 47 and 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 14 of the Framework Act on Civil Defense (amended by Act No. 4017 of August 5, 198), Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the tenant's joint shelter facilities were enforced at the time of the construction of the instant aggregate building, and Article 30 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the defendant KimB did not raise any objection against the management activities of the sectional owners of each of the instant aggregate buildings for 30 years from the time of sale, each of the instant aggregate buildings can only belong to the co-ownership of sectional owners as to the instant aggregate buildings, and it cannot be the purpose of sectional ownership.

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in this case is null and void in relation to the common areas which cannot be the object of the sectional ownership. Thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in this case is an act of preservation of each of the buildings in this case, and thus, the plaintiff who is the sectional owner of each of the buildings in this case seeking its implementation, and the defendant KimB has a duty to implement the registration procedure of cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership in this case, and the third party who is the interest in the

3. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that ① even if the registration of preservation of ownership of this case is null and void, Defendant KimB occupied each of the buildings of this case in peace and public performance with the intention to own each of the buildings of this case for more than ten years after the registration of preservation of ownership was completed. ② Even if each of the buildings of this case is co-owned by sectional owners, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case was completed in accordance with the title trust agreement between the sectional owners and Defendant KimB, and then Defendant KimB became an effective owner of each of the buildings of this case, and ③ even if the Plaintiff is a co-owner of each of the buildings of this case, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case cannot seek cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership of this case as to all of the buildings of this case, since the registration of preservation of ownership of this case was null and void because it cannot be registered under the Registration of Real Estate Act, and as long as the registration of this case is no matter to be effective by the Registration of Real Estate Act, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership of this case is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.