공유물분할등기등
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff seeking partition of co-owned property is divided between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as to each land listed in the separate sheet. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff is deemed to be co-owners of each land listed in the separate sheet, but there is no evidence to recognize that the Defendants are co-owners of each land listed in the separate sheet. Rather, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, the Defendants are co-owners of each land listed in the separate sheet, and they are not co-owners of each land listed in the separate sheet.
Therefore, this part of the lawsuit seeking the division of the article jointly owned between persons who are not co-owners of each land listed in the separate sheet is unlawful.
2. The Plaintiff’s portion of the claim for cancellation of the right to a site indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table, which is the land indicated in the attached Table list, is the land that is the object of the right to a site of the 347.76m2, 247.76m2, 347.76m2, and 347.76m2 of the 3rd floor (the apartment building that is the object of the Defendant’s sectional ownership) on the land of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the 1st, Hanju-si, a building on the ground, or the land indicated in paragraph
The above "registration to the purport that a site right is a site right" is revoked ex officio by a registrar when the "registration of a site right" has been made with respect to a sectioned building at the request of the owner of a sectioned building, and where the "registration of a site right" is revoked at the request of the creditor who subrogated the owner of a sectioned building or the owner of a sectioned building, such part of the registration is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is dismissed as all unlawful.