1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 7, 2016, upon the application of the Credit Guarantee Fund, which is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding each of the instant real estate, the voluntary auction procedure was initiated as D with regard to each of the instant real estate by the Daejeon District Court Branch D (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction procedure”).

C. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant purchased each of the instant real estate in the instant voluntary auction procedure and acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate by fully paying the sales price.

On January 12, 2018, the Defendant filed an order for the delivery of real estate C with the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon, Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant order for delivery”) with the Plaintiff and received a decision to deliver real estate (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) from the Defendant.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry into evidence of subparagraphs A through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of each of the instant real estate did not have independence in structure and use, which can be the object of sectional ownership.

Therefore, even if each real estate of this case is registered on the register as an aggregate building, the registration of each real estate of this case is null and void.

Since the registration of each real estate of this case is null and void, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is also null and void, and the decision of commencement of auction and the permission of sale based on the establishment of an invalid neighboring mortgage also

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the extradition order of this case should not be permitted.

3. The order to deliver real estate is a judgment to which only an appeal can be lodged (see Article 136(5) of the Civil Execution Act) and constitutes an executive title stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 56 of the Civil Execution Act.

Where a judgment to be dissatisfied only with an appeal is an executive title, the grounds that Article 44 (2) of the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act, which occurred after the conclusion of the judgment.