1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”) operated by the P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “P”) constructed and sold multi-family housing on the ground of Q Q 923 square meters prior to the moment of netcheon-si on December 201, upon receipt of a written consent for use of the entire area fromO and R, which are co-owners of the above land, and submitted it to the competent authority.

Since then, for its development, the O and R completed the division of the pertinent land into four parcels of Q 311 square meters, Q 5262 square meters prior to Q, N 659 square meters prior to N, and T 201 square meters prior to T by February 2, 2012, and Q, S, and N are owned solely byO, and T land is divided into common property owned solely by R.

(N) Since the land category is changed to a site, the land category is changed to a site (hereinafter “the instant land,” and the remaining divided land is marked only with the lot number) In addition, P acquired the ownership of Q land from O and constructed a new U building, which is an apartment house of 16 households, on the instant land, and constructed an access road to the instant land adjacent thereto, and obtained approval for use of U building on October 23, 2013. The instant land has been used not only as the site for U building but also as the only way to contribute to the said divided land and the instant divided land.

Meanwhile, the Defendants, in the aforementioned development process, have one unit of U building sold from P in lots and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof. The Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in the process of compulsory auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 2, 2015, for the instant land used as an access road to U buildings.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), and the fact-finding conducted by the court of the first instance on the net city of the court of the first instance, there was no fact that the plaintiff accepted the plaintiff's claim as to the purport of the whole pleading as a successful bid at auction, and it did not allow the plaintiff to bear the burden of restricting exclusive and exclusive right to use the land of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants are owners of the instant land.