beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Dong Asia Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Building”) newly constructed and sold five stories apartment units in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant apartment units”). On December 31, 1974, the registration of the preservation of ownership was completed on May 22, 1990 by indicating that “5 stories, 510 stories, 211.40§³, 21.40§³,” among the 413.52§³, the above apartment units as “5 stories, 5 stories, 510 stories, 510 stories, 211.40§³, 5 stories, 5 stories, 510 stories, and the registration of the preservation of ownership was completed on May 22, 199.”
B. The registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 501/2 shares of the land of this case 510 units of the land of this case was completed on June 19, 1990 for E and F on June 15, 1990, and thereafter for E's shares, the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 510 units of 510 units of the land of this case was completed on May 16, 2003, and for F's shares, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 6, 2004 on the ground of inheritance due to an agreement division between the plaintiff A and the plaintiff.
C. On August 29, 2011, G, the owner of the instant apartment No. 510, the instant apartment No. 110, G, the owner of the instant apartment No. 510, filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration against Dong Construction and the Plaintiffs, asserting that registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Dong Construction and registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiffs’ name should be cancelled for the invalidation of the cause, and that registration of cancellation of ownership in the instant apartment No. 510, the instant apartment No. 110, the instant apartment No. 201, the Seoul Central District Court held that the instant apartment No. 201, Aug. 29, 2011, and that the instant ground No. 510, the instant ground No. 510, the instant apartment No. 110, the entire owner of the apartment No. 510, cannot be deemed to belong to the building that was provided for the public use of all sectional owners, and it cannot be deemed to be the exclusive ownership.