2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

However, since only the defendant appealed to the part against the defendant, the dismissed part of the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive, and only the acquisition tax, registration tax, and local education tax are subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

2. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2005, the compulsory auction procedure for the instant land was commenced on October 13, 2005 upon the application of C’s creditor D, a debtor, the former owner of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, B, 166.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land was commenced on January 2, 2006 upon the application of the FF Association, a mortgagee (Seoul Western District Court E), and on January 2, 2006.

(Seoul Western District Court G). (b)

The plaintiff paid the sale price of the land of this case on December 19, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 19, 2007.

C. 1) On October 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said C, etc. against the Seoul Western District Court 2014Gahap7315, which sought reimbursement of unjust enrichment equivalent to the land rent for the instant land and the instant land. The said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015. (2) Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na27967, etc. (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na27967) and the said court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on May 27, 2016.

In other words, this case’s land is not effective to separate a section for exclusive use of an aggregate building and a right to use site pursuant to Article 20(1) and (2) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”) from a section for exclusive use of an aggregate building and dispose of only the site. It is also effective