1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant of the independent party intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. Co-owners of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 370 square meters and D large 1,038 square meters, including the Plaintiff, concluded a reconstruction project agreement with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) in which E is the representative director on May through June 2003, by setting up an association (it is a partnership under the Civil Act that did not obtain the authorization of establishment of an association) with the intention to remove the existing building on each of the above sites and reconstruct the officetel building.

According to the above reconstruction project contract, new officetels were sold preferentially to the association members, provided an opportunity to sell the remaining households to the association members first in the form of lot, and as to the remaining households, F, the executor, on behalf of the association members, was to sell the remaining units on behalf of the association members and to make up for the construction cost.

B. G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) followed the status of F in the above rebuilding project agreement and carried out a reconstruction project of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land and D Site (Seoul Mapo-gu KK 422 square meters and L 173 square meters in the process of carrying out the project).

C. On February 4, 2009, H Association received a decision of provisional disposition on April 9, 2009 as Seoul Western District Court 2008Kahap2317 by deeming the right to claim the registration of establishment of additional facilities on real estate corresponding to the general sale portion among officetels newly constructed pursuant to the above reconstruction project as the preserved right, and upon the entrustment of the registration of provisional disposition by the above court, on April 9, 2009, on the basis of the name of the owner of the building permit, registration of preservation of ownership was completed by one-46 shares each in the name of the owner of the building.

As one of the building owners of the above officetels, the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership preservation for 1/46 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

E. On August 1, 2006, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with G on the apartment of this case, and at present, this point.