1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1 of the facts presumed as the premise, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on August 29, 2007, and upon the application of the C council of occupants’ representatives (representative D), the compulsory auction was commenced on January 4, 2017 and sold to the Defendant on February 28, 2019, and the Defendant applied for an order to deliver real estate against the Plaintiff and received the decision to this court E on March 6, 2019.

2. The plaintiff's assertion 1) despite that D is not the representative of C council of occupants, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as the representative of the above organization, and applied for the above compulsory auction on the building of this case owned by the plaintiff based on this, so the defendant who purchased the building of this case in the above compulsory auction procedure shall cancel the registration of ownership transfer and have the obligation to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff. However, even if D is not the representative of C council of occupants' representatives, as alleged by the plaintiff, even if D obtained a favorable judgment against the plaintiff as its representative, and thereby the procedure for compulsory auction of the building of this case owned by the plaintiff was commenced, as long as D was conducted without cancelling the above compulsory auction procedure, and the defendant purchased the building of this case in this procedure, the defendant acquires the ownership of the building of this case. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant purchased the instant building in the process of compulsory auction rather than taking over the claim against the Plaintiff from the C&D council of occupants' representatives. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.