1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

Before approval for use of the above building was granted, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on April 23, 2007 in the name of the owner, A.S. D., the owner corporation on April 23, 2007.

On May 4, 2007, the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was withdrawn and cancelled on May 8, 2007.

On May 10, 2007, the defendants are the provisional registration authority for the real estate of this case. On December 30, 2006, the provisional registration for the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed with the trade reservation made on December 30, 2006, and on November 23, 2009, on December 16, 2009, the principal registration based on the above provisional registration was completed with the defendants as the owners of 1/2 equity shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and plaintiff's claim cause of judgment was successful on September 8, 2010 of the above C 38 defense rooms suspended by the Corporation. The plaintiff completed the construction of the above building and completed the construction on February 20, 2012. The construction cost required for the construction of the section for common use among the construction works performed by the plaintiff is KRW 1,77,99,860, and the construction cost according to the share ratio of the real estate owned by the defendants is KRW 45,942,983, and the defendants are obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.

Only with the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff completed the suspended construction work; the construction cost incurred in the construction of the section for common use among the Plaintiff’s construction works is 1,77,99,860; the construction cost share according to the ratio of shares in the instant real estate owned by the Defendants is 45,942,983; the time when the Plaintiff performed the construction work is the one after the Defendants’ ownership acquisition; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the above facts are recognized is without merit.

If so, the plaintiff.