1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the “section 9 of the first instance judgment” shall be deemed to be “shares in site”; the “Article 57-3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act” in the third 8 shall be deemed to be “Article 60(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act; and the following shall be the same as the written judgment of the first instance court, except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding portion. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that the part of exclusive ownership and the right to site of the apartment of this case are separate from that of the part of exclusive ownership in this case in that the plaintiff and the defendant did not agree that the ownership registration of the apartment of this case has not been completed, since Han Young-han corporation, the creditor of the defendant, completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the apartment of this case on behalf of the defendant

However, the right to use site of a sectional owner is in accordance with the disposition of his section of exclusive ownership, and the sectional owner cannot dispose of the right to use site separately from his section of exclusive ownership.

(Article 20(1) and (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. Site ownership is a concept of procedural law designed to announce that the above right to use site cannot be separately disposed of from that of a section for exclusive use on the register, and it cannot be a ground for a separate disposition of section for exclusive use and right to use site. The existence of an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to transfer the right to use site does not affect the unity of the disposition of section for exclusive use and right to use site.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.