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

A. The houses and stores were respectively constructed on the south-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ddong (hereinafter “Ddong”) 286.6 square meters (hereinafter “E land before division”). The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of equity and the registration of transfer of ownership on October 14, 1983 with respect to the shares of 1/2 of E land before division and the building on the north side of the said land (the right side (F) of E land; hereinafter “instant building”) on the grounds of sale as of October 12, 1983.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s purchase of the above shares and building, G owned the remainder of 1/2 of the land E before partition, and managed the building south of the said land. However, as the shares of G transferred before transfer, the Plaintiff purchased G’s above shares at the auction procedure on November 12, 2013, and thereafter, owned and managed the building south of the said land (attached Form photographed by the left-hand side of the Plaintiff; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”).

C. Before subdivision, the land E is divided into E, E, 143.3 square meters and C, 143.3 square meters according to its lot number on June 18, 2014 by entrusting the registration of subdivision under Article 37(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land according to the order to commence subdivision under Article 16 of the same Act. The instant building was located on the land of E, and on the land of C, the Plaintiff’s building was located on the land of E.

In the building ledger of the building of this case, "E" and "C" are written in the building site location and lot number as "E" and the relevant lot number, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including those with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The land of E before the plaintiff's assertion was divided, the remaining side of the land was in the sectional co-ownership relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant's sectional ownership, and the defendant's building of this case is located only on the land of E as a result of the above land division, and the plaintiff's building is owned by C.