1. Defendant B and C are Defendant D’s right to a site as stated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) sold 60,000,000 apartment housing units F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on January 7, 1994 on the 15th apartment of reinforced concrete structure 14565.6m2, 1465m2, Jung-gu, North-gu, Gwangju, which is preserved and registered as their co-ownership, for their co-ownership, to Defendant D’s 60,000 square meters, and the share of the instant apartment site was completed after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer, and the ownership transfer registration was completed only with respect to the instant apartment.

B. However, when Defendant D did not complete the registration of ownership ownership ownership ownership ownership of the instant apartment, the instant apartment was sold to Gwangju District Court G, and the Plaintiff was awarded the instant apartment on March 21, 1997 and completed the registration of ownership transfer after obtaining a successful bid for the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of the seller of an aggregate building has completed the registration of transfer of ownership or the registration of change of a site ownership with respect to the shares of a site to the buyer of a building at the end of the year following the adjustment of the land register, and the registration of transfer with respect to the portion of exclusive ownership was completed only after the completion of the auction procedure for the portion of exclusive ownership without the registration of transfer of ownership or change of a site ownership, and where the third party has been awarded a successful bid of the section of exclusive ownership, the successful bidder shall obtain the right to use the site under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and as the effect of acquiring the right to use the site, the successful bidder may seek against the buyer

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da58611, Sept. 22, 2006). According to the above legal principle, Defendant B and C, who is a seller of an aggregate building, sought by subrogation of Defendant D, respectively, to the Plaintiff.