2. The plaintiff's primary claim and conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The primary claim: As to the shares of 37.421/46.5 of each 44,946.249 shares among the lands listed in the separate sheet (the defendant's share), the defendant shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the acquisition of the right to use the site on May 16, 1997 to △△ apartment reconstruction Association (Seoul Mapo-gu) and the head of the association (the head of the association, non-party 3) on June 7, 2011 (the defendant's share ratio in the land listed in the separate sheet was 4,946.489/5 "4,946.249/5," and the correction registration was made at the court of the first instance as above.

B. Preliminary claim: On June 13, 2011, the Defendant executes the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on June 13, 201 with respect to the shares of 37.421/46.5, each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (the Defendant’s share) by 44,946.249/5 (the Defendant’s share) among the lands listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff corrected only as above as to the primary claim, but did not explicitly withdraw the conjunctive claim).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Defendant constructed ○○ apartment and its ancillary facilities (hereinafter “○○ apartment”) with a total of 642 households, including 44,946,50 households and 192 households, on the ground of a total of 44,946,50 square meters of the land indicated in the list of the previous land (hereinafter “previous land”) owned by the Defendant around 1963, and completed sale in lots and conversion in lots until 1967.

B. Meanwhile, when the Defendant filed a civil petition against the selling price while selling ○○○ apartment, the Defendant excluded some buildings, sites, etc., such as the apartment underground room, management office, chemical board, and smoke gas supply room in the complex from the sale price subject to the sale price reduction. On November 8, 1982, around 637 square meters of the site except for the land ledger (No. 38 square meters) were to be distributed in proportion to the total area of 642 households and treat them as co-owned shares.

The office of asset management (1st floor) of the site of the building with the name of asset contained in the main text shall be 38 square meters, 57.81 square meters and 68.37 square meters and 554.01 square meters and 43 square meters and 22 square meters and 502.32 square meters in total, 61.82 square meters and 675.69 square meters and 675.69 square meters in total.

C. On November 15, 1982, the Defendant sold only the original paper (38 square meters) to the chief director of the ○○ apartment operation and management association and the president of the autonomous committee, and notified that the remaining facilities and the site were decided to be handled as follows.

1. In cases of underground room 54.01, 554.01, it shall be allocated in proportion to the exclusive area of each household of the relevant lease agreement

2. On the basis of the exclusive area of each household referred to in 642, the site other than the site for chemical source shall be disposed of as co-owned shares in proportion to the distribution based on the exclusive area of

3.The management office building 57.81 square meters shall be treated as public property of the former complex 642.

4. All assets shall be delivered to the present state.

D. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer to the buyers of ○○ apartment in the form of co-ownership transfer according to the size of each unit out of the previous land, and thereafter, the buyers completed the registration of ownership ownership on each co-ownership share until 1991. At the time, the Defendant possessed 381.07/5 of the previous land.

E. After that, the △△ apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter “instant association”) obtained the first authorization on December 13, 1988 for the purpose of removing ○○ apartment, newly constructing reconstruction apartment on the previous land to carry out the business of selling it in lots to the members and the general public, and obtained the alteration authorization on September 30, 191. On May 1, 1992, the reconstruction project commenced on the reconstruction project and obtained the approval for the use of △△ apartment, which was reconstructed on May 16, 197, for the reconstruction project, on May 16, 1997.

F. Meanwhile, the previous land was changed to 44,081.3 square meters in total of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on December 9, 199, following the procedure of land substitution and the completion of land rearrangement by the reconstruction project of the instant association, and each of the said lands became the land subject to the site ownership of the instant apartment.

G. On October 29, 192, the Plaintiff purchased 122,072,00 square meters from the instant association in general sale form and paid the purchase price in full, and completed the registration of ownership transfer only for the portion of exclusive ownership on October 23, 1997.

H. On February 24, 2012, when the trial was in progress, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of indication of a site ownership based on the share ratio of 37.421/44, among each of the instant lands on October 29, 1992 on the ground that the right to site ownership was acquired on October 29, 2012. However, the Seoul Western District Court rendered a decision to dismiss the said application on March 30, 2012 on the ground that the instant association has no share in each of the instant lands on the registry.

I. At present, among each of the instant lands, co-ownership shares not registered as the site ownership of the instant apartment section for exclusive use by the instant association are 44,946.56/40 in total, and the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant was completed as to the shares of 78.249/5 of that 44,946.307/5 in total, and the remaining 331.307/5 in total are co-ownership shares of the purchaser of the instant apartment from the instant association.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without any dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 12 through 22, 28, 33 and 35, and Eul's 1 through 7 (including the branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The association of this case transferred 44,946.5 shares of each of the lands of this case to the buyers who purchased the same household area as the unit area No. 106, 303 of the apartment building of this case and 37.421 shares among each of the lands of this case. Thus, the association of this case failed to complete the registration of site ownership until now since it failed to implement the obligation to transfer the above shares pursuant to the sale contract. Meanwhile, the defendant decided to dispose of the remaining properties of the site of ○○ apartment of this case as co-ownership. Since the defendant agreed to the reconstruction, the association of this case could newly construct the apartment of this case by designating the whole site including the shares owned by the defendant as the site of the reconstruction project. Accordingly, when the association of this case newly constructed the apartment building of this case and obtained approval for use on May 16, 1997, the association of this case was incorporated into the association of this case with the defendant's right to use the apartment building of this case as part of the land of this case No. 4497496.7.5 of the ownership ownership of this case. 97496.

B. Determination on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of the main claim part is unlawful on the ground that the registration of the right to a site was completed with regard to subparagraph 303 of the same Article owned by the plaintiff, and there is no need to preserve it, or that the plaintiff has no right to file a claim for the registration of the right to a site transfer against the union of this case. However, the fact that the above subparagraph 106 Dong 303 did not have a right to a site ownership registration is as seen earlier, and the plaintiff has a right to file a claim for the registration of the share transfer corresponding to the area of the site which was sold under the sales contract with

C. Judgment on the merits

We examine whether the association of this case can seek implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the right to use the site can be acquired on the ground that the right to use the site of this case from among each land of this case.

In addition, the right to use a site is a right to the site of a building (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings), which is owned by a person holding a sectional ownership of an aggregate building to own a section of exclusive ownership (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings), and its ownership or other usage rights are included. However, the association of this case has obtained approval for use of the apartment of this case on May 16, 1997, and there is no ground to deem that the right to use the site of this case acquired the right to own shares of the defendant among each land of this case, and the right to use the site itself does not constitute a legal ground for acquiring ownership. Furthermore, in this case, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of the defendant to the association of this case by means of sale, donation, etc. at the time of reconstruction, around 1982, around 637 square meters of the site except for the land of this case (Article 38 square meters).

Therefore, the primary claim of this case is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From June 14, 1991, when the association of this case was trusted from the sectional owners of ○○ apartment and started the removal of ○○ apartment, the association of this case commenced possession of the shares owned by the defendant among each of the land of this case. From October 23, 1997, the plaintiff succeeded to possession of 37.421/5 of the shares in the defendant's shares from October 23, 1997, which is a part of the defendant's shares, and occupied in peace and public performance by June 13, 201, when the period of prescription for the acquisition of possession expires. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the ownership transfer registration on June 13, 201 with respect to the shares in each of the land of this case, which are part of 44,946.249/5/7.421/5, which are part of the shares in each of the land of this case.

B. Determination

The Defendant transferred the shares of the previous land to the buyers of ○○○ apartment in accordance with the terms of the sales contract, and thereafter, the instant association commenced possession with the shares of the land entrusted from the members for the purpose of the reconstruction project. The shares of 37.421/46.5, a part of the shares remaining in the name of the Defendant until the time, did not belong to the site ownership of ○○○ apartment. Thus, there is no ground to acknowledge that the instant association was transferred the shares of the Defendant, which was not the object of possession by the members of the association, to the said shares of ○○○ apartment. Thus, the instant preliminary claim of this case is not acceptable without the need to further examine the different points.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed due to the lack of merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the primary claims is unfair, and thus, it is revoked by accepting the defendant's appeal and all of the conjunctive claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-ap (Presiding Judge)