Although the share of the land in the attached list corresponding to the site ownership at the time was unregistered, the appraisal was included in the calculation of the appraisal and the auction was conducted, there was no provision that the building and the site may be disposed of separately.

[Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. 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 follow the disposition of his/her section of exclusive ownership, and a sectional owner shall not dispose of his/her right to use a site separately from his/her section of exclusive ownership unless otherwise prescribed by the regulations, and the prohibition of separate disposal shall not oppose a third party who has acquired a real right in good faith, unless

The purpose of the above provision is to prevent the occurrence of sectional ownership without a right to use site by suppressing the separation of exclusive ownership of an aggregate building and the right to use site to the maximum extent possible, thereby seeking stability in legal relations about an aggregate building and reasonable discipline.

Therefore, the disposal of land contrary to the unity of section for exclusive use and right to use site is not effective.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da71578 Decided January 17, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing factual basis, the Plaintiff who was awarded a successful bid for a section of exclusive ownership under 810 in the auction procedure for an aggregate building shall be deemed to have acquired the right to a site in the attached Table, which is an accessory right of the section

Therefore, the defendant is the reason for the sale of the share of the land in the attached list to the plaintiff by the voluntary auction on September 15, 2014 in Seoul Central District Court C real estate auction case.