1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. Determination as to the establishment of the right to use site 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the part of exclusive ownership under subparagraph 15 of the first floor among the instant building (hereinafter “instant exclusive ownership”).

(2) On or before July 3, 2012, when the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above section of exclusive ownership was completed, on or before the foregoing section of exclusive ownership was registered, and on July 26, 2005, on the provisional attachment by Hanyang Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., and on August 11, 2009, even if the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s shares with respect to the instant section of exclusive ownership and the above section of exclusive ownership at the same time, the Plaintiff may separately dispose of the Plaintiff’s sectional ownership and the Plaintiff’s shares with respect to the said section of exclusive ownership, and the above section of exclusive ownership is not established. (2) The right to use the site of an aggregate building is a right owned by a sectional owner with respect to the site of a building to own the said section of exclusive ownership and to establish it, other special requirements are not required in addition to the existence of an aggregate building and the right to use the relevant section of exclusive ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26145, Jun. 23, 2009).

3. The fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant section of exclusive ownership on July 3, 2012 under the status that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s shares is identical to that of the basic facts, and thus, the portion of exclusive ownership is related thereto.