beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. Assistance from among the total costs of the lawsuit shall be made.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiffs and K are the owners of each household of the existing apartment houses with a total of 18 households located on the land of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "Gu NNL"), and the defendant is the creditor of K who lent 450 million won to K on December 12, 2008.
B. On April 4, 2003, 200, 18 owners of each household of the Gu NNL, including the Plaintiffs and K, removed the former NNL and decided to construct a new apartment house of 19 households (hereinafter “new NNL”) which added one household on the site. Accordingly, the new NNL was reconstructed upon obtaining a construction permit from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.
C. The defendant against K on March 6, 2009 is "No. 701 of the attached Form No. 2009Kahap311, added as above by the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap311."
On March 10, 2009, upon receipt of the decision prohibiting the provisional disposition on real estate disposal, K had completed the registration of initial ownership on behalf of K on March 10, 2009. On the same day, the above provisional disposition was completed and executed after completing the registration of provisional disposition under No. 10706 on the same date, and thereafter, the registration of initial ownership was completed on September 1, 2009 by the court No. 56815, the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000,000, and the debtor K’s establishment of a neighboring mortgage. On the other hand, the defendant filed an application for a preliminary auction of real estate on November 2, 201 with the Seoul Central District Court for a commencement of compulsory execution on November 2, 2011. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, 4, and 6 evidence (including the main numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The 18 owners of each household of the former NNB, including the plaintiffs and K, agreed to remove the former NNB and reconstruct the new NNB, and the 18 additional units of the household are co-ownership of the above 18 owners. Thus, 701 is co-ownership of 18 owners of each household of the former NNB, including the plaintiffs and K. The plaintiffs, co-ownership of 701.