1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. Since the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land was cancelled due to the cancellation of agreement with H on December 14, 201, the sectional owner disposes of the right to use the site separately, it violates Article 20(2) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on October 28, 2009, which was completed on October 28, 2009. On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer of the instant land constitutes registration of invalidation of the ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on February 21, 2013, which was completed on December 24, 2012.

Article 20 of the Multi-unit Building Act provides that the right to use site of a sectional owner shall follow the disposition of his section of exclusive ownership (Paragraph 1), and the sectional owner shall not dispose of the right to use site separately from his section of exclusive ownership unless otherwise provided by regulations or notarial deeds (Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 4). The prohibition of separate disposition cannot be asserted against a third party who has acquired a real right in good faith without registering its purport.

(3) is defined in subsection (3).

However, separate disposition prohibited under the above provision refers to an act of disposal, and it does not constitute a judgment of formation, such as inheritance, expropriation, prescriptive acquisition or extinction of prescription, and a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments, ① the construction of gold decoration Co., Ltd. against Dong-do Co., Ltd., Ltd., the court of this Court No. 2011, 10310 H and Dong-si Co., Ltd.