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.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff's “Plaintiff” in Part 7 of Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “Defendant Union”; and (b) the judgment of the court of first instance as stated below is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the Plaintiff and the Defendants; and (c) thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 추가판단 내용 갑 제9호증의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 2009. 9. 13. 피고 조합의 조합원으로서의 지위를 상실하였고, 피고 조합이 원고에 대하여 원고 소유의 AV아파트 제15동 제401호에 관하여 2009. 9. 13.자 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차의 이행청구권이 있는 사실이 인정되고, 한편 피고 조합은 2009. 9. 2. 대한민국을 상대로 관련 소송을 제기하고, 2011. 4. 9. 관련 소송 제1심 법원으로부터 이 사건 토지 중 별지 도면 ㉠, ㉣, ㉥ 부분(이하 ‘이 사건 점유부분’이라 한다)의 시효취득완성일이 관리처분계획의 인가고시 시점인 2011. 1. 12.이라는 판단을 받은 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다.

In the following circumstances, ① it is difficult to view that the Defendant Cooperative knew or could have known that the Defendant Cooperative was able to acquire the statute of limitations on September 13, 2009, and ② the Defendant Cooperative acquired the statute of limitations on the part of possession of the instant case only when it succeeded to the entire possessor’s possession on January 12, 201 with the public notice of approval of the management and disposition plan on January 12, 201, and the Defendant Cooperative did not acquire the statute of limitations on the part of possession of the instant case by succession only to the Plaintiff’s possession. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to seek the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure on September 13, 2009 against the Republic of Korea as of September 13, 209.