The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the right to use the site is a right to the site of a building in order for a sectional owner to own a section for exclusive use, not necessarily limited to the real right such as ownership on the site, but the right to use the site may also become a right to use the site. However, the right to use the site shall remain effective as a right to use the site. Therefore, the right to use the land which has ceased to exist after the invalidation of the right to

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was not entitled to oppose the Plaintiff to own the instant building on September 8, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15158, Sept. 8, 201) is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on real estate trust and right to use site, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the content of the sale management trust agreement

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the request for removal of the instant building and delivery of the land did not violate the good faith principle or abuse of rights.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the good faith and abuse of rights, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.