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

(1) (1) Defendant LCC’s objection to the transfer of ownership, etc. that was completed on October 11, 2007 by this Court No. 110104;

(2) Defendant Future Credit Union shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of neighboring mortgage completed on October 11, 2007 by this Court No. 110105;

B. On June 18, 2002, the Defendant Ansan-si, the Republic of Korea, the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation, and the Defendant Incheon Metropolitan City expressed their intent of each acceptance with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as stated in the above 1.A. (1).

The fact that Defendant ParkB newly constructed a multi-household on April 16, 2002 in Ansan-si OB and sold a multi-household house on April 16, 2002 with the registration of ownership transfer on each unit; that the first floor of the above multi-household house has a heading room of 56.83 square meters on the left side; that there is a heading room of 72.175 square meters on the right side; that there is a heading room of a size of 72.175 square meters on the right side; that the building register and the building register are 000 square meters; that the narrow heading room is 00 square meters on the narrow area; that is, the Plaintiff’s heading room in the building register; that the Plaintiff’s heading room is the owner of 000 square meters on the narrow area; that is, the Plaintiff’s heading room in the building register is not in dispute between the parties concerned or that the entire purport of pleading is recognized in full view of the overall purport of pleading.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased a 72.175m2, the larger of the above multi-household house from Defendant ParkB at the time of purchasing the above multi-household house. However, on the ground that the above multi-household house's 0th floor mark was 000, the Plaintiff registered as the owner of '00 on the register' on the ground that the 0th floor mark was 0000, and 56.83m2 of the above 56.83m2 from Defendant ParkB, the Plaintiff registered as the owner of '101m2 on the register.' The Plaintiff’s 10m2 registration of ownership transfer as to Defendant ParkB’s 10m2 in lieu of the sales contract and the agreement between the parties, the Plaintiff’s 10m2 registration of ownership transfer as to Defendant ParkB’s 10m2 in lieu of the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer as to Defendant ParkB’s 10m2, the Plaintiff’s 10m2, the Plaintiff’s 10m2.

3. Determination

The issue of this case is what is the subject matter of the sales contract agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant ParkB. Therefore, the fact that the registration of preservation was made for the above multi-household house as "00 unit No. 2" around April 16, 2002, "No. 200 unit No. 2, and "No. 300 unit No. 2". According to the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3 unit No. 2, the plaintiff purchased the above multi-household house from the defendant ParkB on May 26, 2002 according to the sales contract. According to the register No. 18 of June 18, 2002, the above preservation registration was made, and the exclusive use area of the above multi-household house was not specified, and the purchaser of real estate was confirmed, and the plaintiff's assertion that "No. 40 unit No. 320" should be the subject matter of sale contract between the plaintiff and the defendant ParkB.

The plaintiff's claim shall not be accepted as groundless.