2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows: (a) using the third instance court's "the first instance court" under the fifth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) adding the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thereby, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not constitute a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship between L andO, which was the owner of the instant land. Even if the sectionally owned co-ownership relationship was established, only AF, who acquired the instant land share through the auction procedure, is subject to restrictions on sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, and neither AG nor the Plaintiff, a specific successor, who acquired the instant shares, is subject to restrictions on sectionally owned co

In light of the current status of the use of the instant land, the Plaintiff cannot exclusively use the area corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share, while the Defendants are also free to use the area corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share, so it cannot be seen as a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, or the Defendants used it beyond the scope of the acceptance thereof. Therefore, the Defendants

B. In the so-called sectionally owned co-ownership relationship in which two or more persons agree to specify the location and size of land on one parcel of land and they register as co-ownership of the sectional owners, each sectionally owned co-owner disposes of his/her own right to another person, while disposing of a specific part which is the object of sectional ownership, as to the specific part of the co-ownership on the register.