1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. C purchased the instant land on June 29, 2002, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 29, 2002.

B. On the instant land, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring community credit bank, which is the mortgagee, was completed on August 8, 2002, the maximum debt amount of KRW 78,000,000,000, the third community credit cooperative prior to the mortgagee, and on October 16, 2002, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring community credit bank, which is the mortgagee, was completed on October 16, 2002.

C. C newly constructs D (hereinafter “instant condominium”) on the instant land, which is a multi-household housing with five floors, and completed registration of ownership preservation as an aggregate building on October 5, 2004. On the same day, C completed registration of ownership preservation as to the instant aggregate building on the entire land.

On October 27, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building, which is the exclusive ownership of the instant aggregate building. Of the instant land, the shares to be registered as the site ownership of the instant building are 43167/19000 (hereinafter “instant site ownership shares”).

E. On December 14, 2006, the Plaintiff was awarded the Plaintiff’s share during the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said share on December 29, 2006, and on the same day, the registration of ownership right to the instant aggregate building on the said land was cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff acquired co-ownership shares of the land of this case and the defendant occupied and used the land of this case by owning the building of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return unjust enrichment acquired by occupying and using the land of this case from December 14, 2006 when the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid.

In this regard, the defendant is prohibited from disposing of the right to a site of an aggregate building separately from its section of exclusive ownership.