A. Defendant ○○○ A&D Co., Ltd. performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of all co-owners’ shares, which was completed on October 31, 2008 by the receipt of No. 63556, and Defendant KimAA, ○○ Construction, ○○ Engineering, ○○ Construction, ○○ General Construction, ○○○ Construction, ○○○, KimB, ○○N, ○○○○, ○AA, and ○○N Co., Ltd. expressed their intent to accept the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration.

B. The Defendant Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government implements the procedure to register cancellation of each share seizure registration that was completed on January 5, 2009 by this Court No. 282, Nov. 26, 2009; and No. 57360, Jun. 4, 2015;

C. Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.: (a) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of share transfer registration that was completed on July 15, 2013 by this Court No. 31857; and (b) the Defendant Republic of Korea expressed its consent on the registration of cancellation of share transfer registration;

D. Defendant Republic of Korea implements the procedure to register cancellation of the registration of equity seizure completed on October 20, 2014 by this Court No. 47805;

E. Defendant ○○○○ performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on April 1, 2008 by this Court No. 19523;

F. Defendant BB shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage completed on February 3, 2009 by this Court No. 3641.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition is as follows (the plaintiff is also seeking to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the share seizure registration completed by the court No. 46152 on October 24, 2013 against the defendant Republic of Korea, but this is overlapping with the expression of consent under Section 1(c) of the order and seems to be erroneous).

(a) Relationship between the Parties

Plaintiff ○○○○ Until now, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sectional ownership”) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the remaining 7 households of sectional ownership building (No. 101, No. 103, No. 101, No. 103, No. 103, No. 201, 202, 203, hereinafter referred to as the “instant sectional ownership”), excluding two households, among the sectionally owned multi-unit houses (total 9 households; hereinafter referred to as the “instant multi-unit houses”) constructed on the ground of 39-4 and 591 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). The Defendants are the right holders related to the instant land as follows.

B. The process of acquiring the sectional ownership of the instant sectional ownership by the Plaintiff ○○○○ Cost

1) The instant land was jointly owned by 4 members, such as Western ○○, Park ○, LeeCC, and KimCC. On June 12, 2007, the share of Western ○○ on June 12, 2007 and the share of Park ○ on September 20, 200 to each instantCC, and thus, there were two co-ownerships of KimCC (59.71/591 shares) and thisCC (531.83 shares).

2) On July 15, 2013, thisCC and KimCC completed the registration of ownership transfer (the cause of registration: the transfer on June 19, 2008) in the name of Defendant ○○ Construction Business on each of the instant land.

3) On the ground of the instant land, the construction for the new construction of the instant apartment was commenced on August 3, 2006, and the owner of the instant apartment was “Agly established on August 3, 2006,” and “Agly established one person,” and “Agly established on May 6, 2011, with respect to the instant 7 households from among the instant 9 households, the registration request was made following the application for a comprehensive construction of Defendant ○ or a provisional disposition for Defendant ○○○, and with respect to the remaining two households, the registration request was completed in the name of thisCC and KimCC from May 14, 2009 to October 8, 209 due to the request for the entry registration in the provisional disposition filed by Defendant ○○ or Defendant BB, and the instant apartment was approved for use on May 6, 2011.

4) On December 31, 2012, with respect to the instant sectional ownership after the completion of registration of initial ownership registration, the ownership transfer registration (property transfer registration (property transfer registration: June 9, 2009) of Defendant ○○○ Construction by subrogation of Defendant ○○ Construction Business and the ownership transfer registration (property registration cause: sale on January 2, 2010) under Defendant ○○ Construction Business was completed, or was completed only after the registration of initial ownership transfer under Defendant ○○ Construction Business’s name (property transfer registration cause: June 19, 2008) was completed.

C. Details of rights acquired by the Defendants relating to the instant land

1) On October 31, 2008, the provisional registration of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was completed on October 31, 2008 on the entire co-owners’ share in the instant land, and the provisional registration of Defendant KimA, ○○ Construction, ○○ Engineering, ○○ General Construction, Korea, KimB, ○○○○, ○○○○○, concerning the said provisional registration was completed on October 31, 2008, as indicated in the following table.

No.

Purpose of registration

Grounds for Registration

1

KimA

March 30, 2009

Receipt No. 13998

Registration of Provisional Attachment

March 2, 2009

Decisions of this Court for provisional seizure

2

○ Construction

May 4, 2009

Receipt No. 20345

Registration of Provisional Attachment

April 30, 2009

Decisions of this Court for provisional seizure

3

○ ○ Engineering

Sang Dong-dong

Sang Dong-dong

Sang Dong-dong

4

○ General Construction

May 27, 2009

Receipt No. 24470

Registration of Provisional Disposition

May 27, 2009

Decisions of this Court on Provisional Disposition

5

The circulation tax secretary under the Republic of Korea

September 25, 2009

Receipt No. 46826

Registration of Seizure

Attachment of September 23, 2009

6

KimB

October 29, 2009

Receipt No. 52412

Registration of Seizure

The Seoul Central District Court's ruling of seizure on September 9, 2009

7

○ ○ Doz.

May 19, 2010

Receipt No. 20626

Registration of Seizure

Seoul Central District Court Order on May 17, 2010

8

For the Republic of Korea-Mali Tax Office

June 17, 2010

Receipt No. 26940

Registration of Seizure

Attachment of June 17, 2010

9

IsaA

June 18, 2012

Receipt No. 26461

Registration of Seizure

Seoul Central District Court Order of June 13, 2012

10

○○ Escencies

September 6, 2013

Receipt No. 39834

Registration of Provisional Attachment

March 22, 2013

Decisions of this Court for provisional seizure

2) As to the portion of the instant land, the registration of seizure No. 282 of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Mapo-gu”) received on January 5, 2009 and the registration of seizure No. 38379, which was received on June 4, 2015, and the registration of seizure No. 47805, which was received on October 20, 2014, was completed on October 20, 2014.

3) The attachment registration of Defendant Mapo-gu was completed as of November 26, 2009 as to the shares of KimCC in the instant land, as of November 26, 2009.

4) On July 15, 2013, Defendant ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. completed the registration of share transfer as above with respect to the share of 2/591 out of the instant land, and the registration of attachment was completed on October 24, 2013 by Defendant 46152, which received on October 24, 2013.

5) As to the instant land, the Defendant ○○○○○ was respectively set up the right to collateral security, i.e., the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000, which was received on April 1, 2008 by this Court No. 19523, and the Defendant B had been set up as the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000 with respect to the instant land, which was received on February 3, 2009 by No. 3641, which was received on February 3, 2009,

D. Progress of related litigation

1) On October 1, 2009, Defendant ○○ General Construction revoked a trade reservation concluded on October 31, 2008 between Defendant ○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○ and KimCC, and Defendant ○○○○○ and KimCC followed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed as above, filed a lawsuit for cancellation of fraudulent act and restoration to original state, and won a favorable judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gahap64203) on October 1, 2009. However, Defendant ○○○○○ and the final appeal was accepted by Defendant 209 A&D’s subsequent appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na10195) and is still pending in the appellate trial (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na10195).

2) On April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ Construction Business filed a lawsuit seeking registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant land, separate from the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant land by Defendant ○○○ and BB. On April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted on April 25, 2014, and the judgment that dismissed Defendant ○○ Construction Business’s claim (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap87340), and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's 1 through 5, 7 through 16, Eul's 10 certificates (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Before the provisional attachment registration, attachment registration, provisional injunction registration, and establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of each corresponding case") of the defendants was completed, the apartment house of this case had already been independent in structure and use, and there was also an act of division. As to each section of exclusive ownership of this case, the sectional ownership was established, and as a result, the plaintiff who acquired the ownership of each section of exclusive ownership of this case acquired the right to use the land of this case under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings"). Accordingly, each of the pertinent registrations of the defendants, which were completed with respect to the land of this case, are null and void in violation of the prohibition of separate disposition under Article 20 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and the plaintiff is a co-owner sharing the land of this case with respect to each section of exclusive ownership of this case, and is demanding the defendants to cancel or cancel each of the pertinent registrations

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the same grounds as indicated in the pertinent part.

1) Defendant ○○○ E&D: As long as a creditor against Defendant ○○ Construction was accepted a subsequent appeal and the case is pending in the appellate trial, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer in its name is valid.

2) Defendant KimA, KimB: Defendant ○○○○○ A&B’s legitimate creditor against Defendant ○○○○ A&B, who completed the pertinent registration of each of the above Defendants in order to secure rights.

3) Defendant ○○○ Entertainment: A state in which the structural independence of the instant apartment building was not maintained at the time of completion of the pertinent registration by the said Defendant; the Plaintiff’s right to use the site is inconsistent with superficies established on June 12, 2007. When the construction work was interrupted due to the construction work in the construction process of the instant apartment, it would be inconsistent with the principle of good faith when the Plaintiff completed the provisional registration by Defendant ○○○ A&D on October 31, 2008 under an agreement by all the land owners.

4) Defendant Mapo-gu: The Plaintiff reported only the value of the building at the time of reporting acquisition tax due to the acquisition of the sectional ownership in this case, and did not establish any right related to the Plaintiff at the time of completing each seizure registration due to the delinquency in the completion type and Kim figure.

5) Defendant ○○○ and ○B: A sales contract, which is the cause of the transfer of ownership between the Plaintiff and ○○ Construction Business, is null and void as a conspiracy in light of the price amount less than the market price, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the right to use the land of this case, and the right to use the land of this case cannot be deemed to have been established at the time of completion of each of the pertinent registrations by the said Defendants (other, the Defendants asserted that the ownership of Defendant ○ Construction Business was transferred due to the transfer of ownership).

6) Defendant Republic of Korea: Since the Plaintiff’s legal representative was acting on behalf of Defendant ○○ Building, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed in violation of the prohibition of acting on behalf of both parties, and even if so, there are special circumstances where it can be deemed that there exists a provision on the separation and disposal of the right to use site under the proviso of Article 20(2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act in this case, or where there was no registration of the purport of prohibition of separate disposal or that it is a site ownership, the above Defendant constitutes “third party in good faith under Article 20(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which cannot be asserted against the prohibition of separate disposal.” The above Defendant’s seizure does not constitute “disposition prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act,” and each of the above Defendant’s seizure does not constitute “disposition prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act.” Thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek preservation of the instant land as co-owner, and Defendant ○○○ Building, which was not a joint owner of this case at the time of this case’s multi-unit Building.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

1) The right to use a site of an aggregate building is a right that a sectional owner has on the site of a building in order to own a section for exclusive use (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Aggregate Buildings Act). In order to establish a right to use a site, a special requirement is not required in addition to the existence of an aggregate building and the right that a sectional owner has the right to use the site in order to own a section for exclusive use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26145, Jun.

In order for divided ownership to be established for one building, there exists one building in an objective and physical aspect, the divided part of the building should be independent in its structure and use, and the physically partitioned part of the building should be divided into the objects of divided ownership. Here, division act is a kind of legal act that intends to divide a specific part of the building into the objects of divided ownership without changing the physical form and quality of the building. It is not a special restriction on the timing and method, but it is recognized if the intention of dividing the disposal authority is objectively indicated. Therefore, even before the physical completion of a divided building, if it is objectively indicated that the future new building is a divided building through the application for building permission or the contract for sale in lots, etc., if it is objectively and physically completed, division act can be recognized, and even if the building has yet to be registered in the aggregate building register or has not been registered in the register (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 710Da71578, Jan. 17, 2013).

2) If a constructor of an aggregate building purchases a site, but yet did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, and constructs an aggregate building on the ground, he/she has the right to possess and use it as the validity of a sales contract. In such a case, the building constructor of an aggregate building has the right to acquire ownership by purchasing sections of exclusive ownership and shares in the form of sale and paying the price in full. However, a person who has completed the registration of ownership transfer only for sections of exclusive ownership and did not complete the registration of ownership transfer due to the above circumstances also has the right to occupy and use the site of a building for the ownership of a section of exclusive ownership as the validity of a sales contract. Such right to possess and use is a right different from a mere right to possess and use, which is a right of sectional owner under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, to own a section of exclusive ownership.

Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that a sectional owner's right to use a site shall comply with the disposition of the section for exclusive use (Paragraph 1), and that a sectional owner shall not dispose of the right to use the site separately from the section for exclusive use unless otherwise provided by the regulations or notarial deeds (Paragraph 2 and 4), and that the prohibition of separate disposal shall not be asserted against a third party who has acquired real rights in good faith without registering the purport thereof (Paragraph 3). The purport of the above provision is to prevent the separation of the section for exclusive use of an aggregate building from the section for exclusive use of a site into the maximum extent possible, thereby preventing the occurrence of sectional ownership without the right to use the site from occurring (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da742, Mar. 10, 2006). Therefore, the act of disposal of a site contrary to the unity of the section for exclusive use and the right to use the site has no effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da456569

B. The time when sectional ownership of the instant apartment house was established and whether the right to use site was acquired

(i)the independence in structure and use;

In order to be a building as an independent real estate, the least columns, roof, and main walls are constructed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da21592, 21608, May 30, 2003). Thus, the facts that the apartment house of this case commenced on August 3, 2006 for the construction of a 9 unit sectional ownership building are as seen earlier, and if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement and image of evidence No. 6, the apartment house of this case has already been completed from the 2nd to the 2nd above ground as of March 12, 2008 to the 2nd above ground as well as the outer wall and roof, and the slive works of the main wall as a sectional ownership, each of the above inside apartment houses of this case can be seen as having already satisfied the requirements for the defendants' respective use of the apartment house of this case at the time of the construction of a 9 unit ownership.

2) Separate conduct

In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the design drawings prepared around April 2006, the apartment houses of this case are the second underground floor, the second apartment houses of the second floor of the ground and the apartment houses of the second floor, which are designed by specifying the area for exclusive use by each household and the area for common use by each household, the building owner thisCC and KimCC concluded with the △△ General Construction on September 19, 2007, and the construction contract documents entered into with Defendant ○○ General Construction on February 13, 2008, respectively, with the payment method of the construction cost at the time of deposit of the sale price account, and it is recognized that the payment method is to be made at the time of sale of the apartment houses of this case, and therefore, it can be seen that there was a separate act of expressing intention that the apartment houses of this case had already been the object of divided ownership on August 3, 2006, which was the time of the commencement of the construction work.

3) Formation of sectional ownership, and acquisition and transfer of site use rights.

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, although the registration was not completed on the land of this case, at least at least at the time when each of the pertinent registrations was completed (after April 1, 2008), thisCC and KimCC, which newly constructed the instant apartment as an aggregate building, acquired the right to use the site for its possession. The Plaintiff acquired the right to use the site for the ownership of the sectional ownership of this case by continuously transferring the sectional ownership of this case through Defendant ○○ General Construction and Defendant ○○ Construction and Defendant ○ Construction.

4) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

Although some Defendants asserted that the establishment of sectional ownership of the instant collective housing and the acquisition and transfer of the right to use site are contrary to the above facts, it is insufficient to reverse the above facts of recognition even if all the evidence submitted by the Defendants were to be incorporated. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion based on the different premise is without merit.

C. Whether the Defendants’ respective registrations of this case are invalid

As seen earlier, thisCC and KimCC had already acquired the right to use the site of this case for the ownership of the instant apartment prior to the completion of each of the instant registrations by the Defendants. Therefore, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a special circumstance that the rules or separate disposition regarding the separate disposition exists, each of the pertinent registrations of the Defendants, which were completed with respect to the instant land, shall be deemed null and void.

On the other hand, one of the co-owners of real estate can seek the cancellation of the registration in whole against a third party, as an act of preserving common property, in a case where the ownership registration for invalidation of the cause has been completed in the name of a third party with respect to the pertinent real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da52870, May 11, 1993). As such, the Plaintiff, who acquired the ownership of the share in the land of this case falling under the right to use the site of this case, is an act of preserving common property, and may seek against the Defendants the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration or the declaration of consent therefor in relation to

Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○○○ A&D, Mapo-gu, ○○ Construction, ○○ Construction, ○○ Engineering, ○○ General Construction, ○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○B, as sought by the Plaintiff, are obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the pertinent registrations, and to express their intent of acceptance on the cancellation registration of the pertinent registration of Defendant ○○○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, EA, and ○○○, as sought by the Plaintiff.

D. Determination as to the remainder of the Defendants’ assertion

First of all, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's procedural acts are invalid due to the violation of the restriction on acceptance by the defendant's Republic of Korea, and Article 31 subparagraph 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act prohibits a lawyer from performing his duties in cases where the other party to the case consented to the acceptance by one of the parties to the case. The plaintiff's attorney at the above Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap87340 case was represented by the plaintiff and defendant ○○ case at the time of the plaintiff's lawsuit, which was the plaintiff's attorney at the time of the plaintiff's lawsuit, but only the plaintiff's attorney at the case was represented by the plaintiff's attorney at the same time. Thus, the plaintiff'

Then, as to the defendants' assertion that they are bona fide third parties under Article 20 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the third party of "a bona fide good faith that cannot be set up against the prohibition of separate disposal under Article 20 (3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act" refers, in principle, to a third party who has acquired the land which is the object of the right to use the site (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26145, Jun. 23, 2009). The evidence submitted by the defendants alone is not sufficient to recognize the defendants as a bona fide third party under the above provision (in particular, in the case of defendant Republic of Korea, each of the tax authorities affiliated with the defendant Republic of Korea, as seen earlier, the apartment houses of this case, at the time of the registration of seizure, has the form of columns, roof, roof, and roof as a sectionally owned building over all the second and second floors, and in light of the circumstances registered as a sectionally partitioned building, it is reasonable to deem that the land of this case was a building site).

The remainder of the Defendants, including the Defendant Republic of Korea, cannot be accepted as an independent interpretation of the legal doctrine or as an open-cut argument that is not supported by evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants, seeking the cancellation of each of the pertinent registrations of this case and the consent thereto, shall be accepted in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.