1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City and its main claim.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that it is identical to the entry of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Defendant B, as to the portion of the primary claim, concluded a contract for the instant apartment No. 201, 707 with the instant association and completed the registration of ownership preservation on the portion of exclusive ownership. Defendant B, as to the portion of 45/2 of the instant land, has the right to receive the registration of ownership transfer by paying the sales price overdue to Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Although registration of change of right to a site was not made, as long as Defendant C and the Plaintiff were awarded a successful bid in order, the Plaintiff acquired the right to use a site under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Act”).

In addition, the owner of a section for exclusive use may demand the seller to implement the procedure for change of the right to a site in order to directly transfer the right to a site from the seller.

Therefore, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is obligated to implement the procedure for registering the ownership of a site with respect to the portion of 45/2 of the land in this case to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

According to Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the right to use site of a sectional owner is subject to the disposition of his section of exclusive ownership, and the sectional owner cannot dispose of the right to use site separately from his section of exclusive ownership.

However, if a sectional owner does not hold a right to use site from the beginning, or if the right to use site is extinguished due to the termination of the trust contract which caused the ownership of the right to use site, there is no room to apply the integrated treatment of the section for exclusive use and the right to use site under Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da23125, Sept. 8, 2011). The Plaintiff, including lives, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers).