1. As to the land below to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant SMM case is the cause of the sale on November 24, 2003.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 10, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased the land ownership corresponding to the portion of land indicated in the order as the right to use the site from Defendant SMM cases for the section of exclusive use 404, 405, and 406 and those sections of exclusive use. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 5, 2003 with respect to the section of exclusive use.

B. At the time when the ground building preservation registration was completed, the land cadastre was delayed due to the delay in the land readjustment project, etc., and was prepared on June 1, 2004.

C. Defendant Republic of Korea registered the seizure in accordance with the order for the enforcement of the taxation claim against SM cases.

【Non-Dispute】

2. Determination

(a) Article 20 (Indivisibility of Section for Exclusive Use and Right to Use Site) (1) A sectional owner’s right to use site shall follow the disposition of section for exclusive use he/she owns.

(2) No sectional owner may dispose of the right to use site separately from his/her section of exclusive ownership.

Provided, That this shall not apply where otherwise provided by the regulations.

(3) The prohibition of separate disposition under the main sentence of paragraph (2) shall not be effective against a third party who has acquired a real right in good faith unless the purport thereof is registered.

B. 1) In this case, the registration of ownership transfer for the portion of land ownership shall be made in accordance with Defendant SMM sales. 2) The ownership of the land as the right to use the site in the Republic of Korea shall be in accordance with the disposal of

The plaintiff purchased a section for exclusive use and a right to use site and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the section for exclusive use.

Therefore, the attachment of Defendant SM case as the obligor is based on the premise that the nominal owner is the owner, even though the nominal owner is not the true owner, and thus, the cause should be cancelled.

The defendant is in good faith a real right.