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

(a) Details of the registration of each building entered in the real estate list in attached Form 3;

1) The Defendant (Appointed Party) AA Distribution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A Distribution”) newly built and sold a building for the five underground floor and the △△△△ Building on seven lots of land **** Dong******-* the △△△ Building on the 5th and the 15th floor above the ground (hereinafter referred to as the “△△△ Building”).

2) Defendant AA distribution divided the five-story of the △△ building that was newly constructed before the completion of △△△ building into each building listed in the real estate list in attached Form 3 and sold it (the "each building of this case" in which each building listed in the real estate list in attached Form 3 is referred to as "each building of this case", and the "0 building of this case" shall be referred to as the "0 building of this case by specifying the number according to the sequence listed in the

3) However, around January 8, 2008, prior to the progress of a construction project to distinguish stores, BB Construction Co., Ltd., a creditor of Defendant AA distribution, filed an application for provisional seizure of each of the buildings listed in Articles 8, 11, 20, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 51, 54, 59, 59, and 75, among each of the buildings of this case, with the claim amounting to KRW 1 billion in the △ District Court 2008Kahap*. The above court accepted it on January 23, 2008, and decided to grant provisional seizure, and the provisional seizure registration was completed due to the entrustment of the provisional seizure registration, and the preservation registration of each of the above buildings was completed in the name of Defendant AA.

4) In other words, BB Construction Co., Ltd. filed an application for provisional attachment on the buildings other than the buildings provisionally seized in the above paragraph 3 among each of the respective buildings of this case with the claimed amount of KRW 8,858,60,000 as ○○ District Court 208Kahap**, and the above court accepted this provisional attachment on January 29, 2008 and rendered a provisional attachment decision on January 29, 2008, and the provisional attachment registration was completed on January 31, 2008 in the name of Defendant AA Distribution (hereinafter above 3) due to the entrustment of the provisional attachment registration (hereinafter above).

5) On the fifth floor of △△ building, there are no other stores registered for the purpose of divided ownership except for the stores of this case 1 through 78.

(b) Registration of collateral security in the name of OCC;

1) On February 1, 2008, Defendant AA distribution borrowed KRW 3 billion from OrCC on the loan and completed the registration of each of the instant buildings as collateral on February 1, 2008, with respect to each of the instant buildings as collateral 1**** as the maximum debt amount (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant mortgages”).

2) On August 28, 2008, OCC transferred the loans of KRW 3 billion and the bonds and each of the instant collateral security rights to the DDR Bank (hereinafter “DDR Bank”), and on the same day, it completed the additional registration of each of the instant collateral security rights to the DDR Bank.

(c) Request, etc. for auction by the D Savings Bank;

1) On November 21, 2008, Do Savings Bank applied for voluntary auction of each of the buildings of this case based on each of the instant collective security rights as the Ma** on each of the instant collective security rights.

2) On November 26, 2008, the judicial assistant of the court of execution rendered a decision to commence the auction of real estate on each of the instant buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "decision to commence the auction of this case"), but on August 28, 2009, each of the instant units of each of the instant buildings was used as a whole without a partition wall, and thus, cannot be an object of sectional ownership, the decision to commence the auction of this case was revoked, and the request for auction of the D Savings Bank was dismissed.

3) On September 10, 2009, the Do Savings Bank filed an immediate appeal (Seoul District Court 2009Ra**) against it.

4) On February 10, 2002, the above court verified that each of the buildings of this case was inspected, and at the time, each of the buildings of this case was marked with a boundary point at the corners of each shop of the floor of the building, and two or ten combined stores were combined, and each store was installed with a separate door at a height of about 1m, and there was no wall, etc. to separate each store.

5) On July 15, 2010, the above court dismissed the decision to commence the auction on the ground that the boundary point mark installed in the corner of the floor level of each store of this case was merely part of the building of this case and the object of sectional ownership cannot be the object of sectional ownership. Although each building of this case was registered as a separate building on the building ledger and registered for the purpose of sectional ownership as such sectional ownership is invalid in itself, since it does not meet the requirements for the boundary point of a commercial building under Article 1-2 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings and Article 1-2 (1) of the Regulations on the Boundary Mark and Building Number Marks under Article 1-2 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, the above boundary point or part partitions alone cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for the boundary point and use of the commercial building of this case. Thus, even though each building of this case was registered as a separate building register independent of the building ledger, such registration is also null and void, and thus, the appeal of this case is unlawful.

6) The DDR Bank re-appeals against this (Supreme Court Decision 2010Ma1**) but the Supreme Court dismissed the re-appeal on October 18, 2010, which became final and conclusive as is the decision of the instant appellate court.

7) Meanwhile, on August 17, 2010, the DDR Bank was declared bankrupt on August 17, 2010 by the ▽△△ District Court 2010Hahap*, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy on the same day.

D. The registration of ownership transfer, etc. in the names of the Defendants and the designated parties was completed in the names of the Defendants and the designated parties for whom the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer in the names of each of the respective buildings of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed, or the registration of attachment, provisional injunction, provisional attachment, etc. was completed.

(e) The current status of △△ buildings;

C. Even after the request for auction by the Do Savings Bank, additional construction, such as construction for the division of stores on △△ building including each of the instant buildings, was not implemented.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The stores of each building of this case are merely part of the building because they lack the independence in structure and use, which can be the object of sectional ownership, and they cannot be the object of sectional ownership. Thus, even if each building of this case is registered as a separate separate building on the building ledger and is registered as the object of sectional ownership, such registration is null and void in itself, and each registration of preservation of ownership of each building of this case is null and void.

B. In addition, the registration of transfer of ownership in the names of Defendant AA distribution, Defendant AE (Appointed Party) E (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant EE”), Defendants and designated parties, and registration of transfer of ownership in the names of each of the Defendants and designated parties, and seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, and provisional disposition, which were based on each of the instant buildings, which were null and void.

C. Meanwhile, each of the instant buildings constitutes the fifth floor of △△ building, and the said fifth floor has no other store registered for the purpose of sectional ownership except for the stores of 1 to 78 of this case. If, at the time of entering into each of the instant mortgage agreement between OrCC and Defendant AA distribution, OrCC and Defendant AA distribution knew that each of the instant buildings could not be the object of sectional ownership, it is apparent that each of the instant buildings was entered into a mortgage agreement on the fiveth floor in which each of the instant buildings is located, and the Plaintiff was transferred all of the instant mortgage rights from OrCC, and the Plaintiff was entitled to the entire transfer of each of the instant mortgage rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the establishment registration of a mortgage on the entire fifth floor in which each of the instant buildings is located.

D. Therefore, with respect to each of the buildings of this case, which were based on each of the buildings of this case, which were invalid registration of ownership preservation against Defendant EE, Defendants, and designated parties on behalf of Defendant AA distribution, the Plaintiff sought an expression of intent to accept each of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant E, Defendants, and designated parties as stated in the separate claim of the attached Table 5, and the cancellation of the ownership registration of this case, and the registration of 9***** of the registration of the Y district court as to each of the buildings of this case and the receipt of each of the buildings of this case against Defendant AA distribution on August 13, 2008, and the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the separate claim of the attached Table 4 (the whole five floors where each of the buildings of this case is located) as to each of the buildings of this case.

3. Determination

A. Whether the plaintiff's right to request the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage exists

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) on the premise that the Plaintiff had the right to claim the registration of establishment of a neighboring building on the 5th floor of the instant △△ building. Therefore, whether the right to claim the registration of establishment of a neighboring building exists as alleged by the Plaintiff is examined.

2) According to the above facts, each of the buildings of this case cannot be deemed to have independence in structure and use, which can be the object of sectional ownership. Therefore, even if each of the buildings of this case is registered as a separate building independent of the building ledger, or is registered for the purpose of sectional ownership, such registration shall be null and void. Thus, each of the registration of ownership preservation of each of the buildings of this case and the registration of ownership transfer, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, provisional disposition, and establishment registration of each of the buildings of this case in the name of Defendant AA distribution, Defendant E-E, Defendants and the designated parties, each of the pertinent registration of ownership transfer, provisional attachment, provisional disposition, and establishment registration of each of the buildings of this case in the name of the Plaintiff shall be null

3) Furthermore, each of the buildings of this case constitutes the fifth floor of ASEAN, and the five floors above did not have other stores registered as the object of sectional ownership except the stores of this case 1 through 78. On February 1, 2008, OrCC completed the registration of creation of each of the instant collective security rights with respect to each of the buildings of this case as the registration and receipt of the Don District Court No. 11066 on February 1, 2008, and the DDR bank transferred each of the instant collective security rights from OrCC on August 28, 2008 and completed the additional registration of the transfer of each of the instant collective security rights on the same day. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by taking full account of the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, it cannot be acknowledged that there was no other evidence that OCC and Defendant AA’s respective of the instant collective security rights did not have any other intent to assert that each of the buildings of this case was an object of sectional ownership.

In other words, in order to establish sectional ownership of one building, there is only one building in an objective and physical aspect, and there is an act of dividing the physically partitioned part of the building into the object of sectional ownership. Here, the act of partitioning is a kind of legal act that intends to divide the specific part of the building into the object of sectional 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 that the intention of dividing the disposal authority is objectively indicated, and even before the physical completion of the sectional ownership, if the intention of dividing the building is objectively indicated to be a sectioned part of the building, the act of partitioning can be recognized if there is an objective indication of the intention of dividing the building to be a newly constructed building through the application for building permission or the contract for sale in lots even before the physical completion of the sectional ownership, and if the building and a sectioned part corresponding to the act of partitioning are completed objectively and physically, it is still registered in the aggregate building register or not registered in the register (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 710Da71578, Jan. 17, 2013).

In the instant case, Defendant AA Distribution attempted to sell each individual store in lots while carrying out the business of newly constructing and selling △△ building, and tried to sell the building separately for each shop, and divided into five floors from among the △△ building newly constructed prior to the completion of the building. However, prior to the process of separate construction work, Defendant AA Distribution completed the preservation registration of the entire building and each of the buildings of this case with the entrustment of provisional seizure registration of BB construction corporation, the creditor, prior to the process of performing a separate construction work, and Defendant AA Distribution completed the registration of collateral security to OCC on each of the buildings of this case by using the same division registration, and completed the registration of collateral security for each of the buildings of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendants and the designated parties.

According to the above facts, it is evident that Defendant AA’s intent to divide △△ building into a sectioned building. In full view of the fact that the preservation registration of each of the buildings of this case was completed with the commission of provisional seizure registration before the process of the construction by which each of the shops, which are the sections of the building for △△△△ was divided into a △△ building. Defendant AA distribution, at the time of the conclusion of each of the instant collective security contract, had the intention to complete the mortgage on the building, which is the object of divided ownership, with the intention to complete the division of each of the buildings of this case, if it was known that each of the buildings of this case was unable to be the object of divided ownership because it did not have independence in structural structure and use, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had the intention to complete the division of each of the buildings of this case with the whole five floors as a single building, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

4) Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a right to claim the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage against Defendant AA distribution on the fiveth floor.

B. Whether the lawsuit against Defendant E-E, Defendants (excluding Defendant AA distribution), and designated parties is legitimate among the lawsuit of the Plaintiff

1) In a creditor subrogation lawsuit, where the right of the creditor to be preserved by subrogation against the debtor is not recognized, the creditor himself/herself becomes the plaintiff and is no longer entitled to exercise the debtor's right against the third debtor, and such subrogation lawsuit is unlawful.

2) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not have the right to file a claim for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the 5th entire floor of Defendant AA distribution. As such, among the lawsuit of this case, the part against the remaining Defendants and designated parties except for Defendant AA distribution by subrogation of the Plaintiff’s right to file a claim for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on each of the buildings of this case is unlawful as there is no preserved right to file a claim for each of the registrations of the ownership transfer, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, provisional disposition, and prior cancellation or cancellation of the registration

C. Determination as to the claim against Defendant AA distribution

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of establishment of a neighboring to the entire fiveth floor for Defendant AA distribution is not recognized. Accordingly, on a different premise, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of establishment of a neighboring to the building in the name of Defendant AA distribution in relation to each of the instant buildings, the cancellation of each of the instant registration of ownership preservation, and the implementation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring to the building listed in the attached Table 4 (the mark of the entire fiveth floor on the premise that each of the instant buildings was not the object of the separate ownership) is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the remaining defendants and designated parties except the defendant AA distribution among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed in its entirety, and all claims against the defendant AA distribution should be dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.