1. Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant D.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. As to the judgment of the court of first instance, only Defendant D appealed with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance, but the lawsuit of this case is a necessary co-litigation as a lawsuit demanding co-litigation. In such a case, an appeal filed by one of the co-litigants is effective against the other co-litigants, and the lawsuit against the Defendants, which did not appeal, is not finalized, and thus, it shall be determined as to Defendant B and C

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '3. Additional Judgment' as to the argument that Defendant D newly made in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the

3. Additional determination

A. Defendant D’s assertion has unregistered loan on the ground of the instant real estate, and such loan constitutes an aggregate building under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”).

Pursuant to Article 8 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the Plaintiff, a co-owner of the instant real estate, cannot claim a partition of co-owned property on the land within the extent necessary for the use of the said unregistered loan, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted on different premise.

B. The legislative purport of Article 8 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which prohibits a claim for partition of a site of an aggregate building, is to secure a foundation for the existence of an aggregate building, in which individual constituent parts are the object of partitioned ownership, as a single building. The site of an aggregate building is in unity or indivisible with the right to divided ownership on the ground. If the co-ownership based on co-ownership, such as a common share, is recognized as a co-ownership, the relation to the use of the site of an aggregate building is likely to cause failure, and thus, the claim for partition is prohibited in order to protect the communal relationship of an aggregate building (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6374, Dec. 27, 2007).