1. The principal lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the designated party) and the designated party M (Counterclaim defendant).

2...

Basic Facts

The N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”) constructed real estate (hereinafter “the instant aggregate building”) listed in the attached Table 1 on the Daejeon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan CityO parking lot 1066.7m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”), one’s own ownership, as indicated in the attached Table 2, on January 30, 208, divided it into 26 sections of exclusive ownership as indicated in the attached Table 2, and divided it into ownership preservation and registered the site ownership of the instant land as the object of the site ownership of the instant aggregate building, and sold each section of exclusive ownership in lots.

However, with respect to the registration of the right to a site to each section of exclusive ownership of the instant condominium, the Defendants’ exclusive ownership in this case from Nos. 1 through 25 in the table Nos. 2 attached hereto (hereinafter “instant exclusive ownership”) is divided into 25 sections of exclusive ownership (one story 2 and 23 divided into two sections of exclusive ownership of the instant aggregate building) with the first floor and the first floor, which are neighborhood living facilities, among the instant exclusive ownership in this case. The Defendants’ exclusive ownership in this case is divided into 25 sections of exclusive ownership (one story 2 and 1 story 23 as indicated in the indication column of the right to a site registration of the same table. However, the ownership registration of the

The instant P is a partitioned building of which the entire parking lots of the second and fifth floors among the instant condominium buildings are sections for exclusive use.

As to the Defendants’ portion of exclusive ownership, the ownership registration corresponding to the area of that exclusive ownership was not made, and accordingly, the ownership ratio exceeding the proportion of the site ownership corresponding to the area of that exclusive ownership, including the portion corresponding to the ratio of site ownership corresponding to the instant subparagraph, was respectively registered.

Unlike the Defendants’ exclusive ownership, the purpose of the instant P is a parking lot, and the registration officer is presumed to have omitted the indication of the relevant site ownership with the erroneous knowledge of the registration of the ownership of each exclusive ownership of the instant condominium, in registering the ownership of each exclusive ownership of the instant aggregate building.

N on the record shall be the proportion of the right to a site.