1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasons for this Court’s explanation concerning this case are the same as the written judgment of the court of the first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3: at the end of Part 9, the following shall be added:

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in [No. 1-1-10 of the evidence No. 1-10, the land which is the object of the site ownership of each of the partitioned buildings of this case is JJ 240 square meters (the land in this case deemed to be below) in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the site ownership registration was not made before the auction procedure in this case as seen below

[2]On Part 3, Part 16 of the "As a cause" is added to "in the future of the Intervenor."

Part 5, "(6)" was added to "(one distribution schedule was prepared for all 10 households of the instant multi-household houses)."

Part 5, Part 7 "F" shall be changed to "Defendant".

2. A. The part of the plaintiffs' assertion (Nos. 5 to 12, 6) is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) all the plaintiffs' assertion (the plaintiff's assertion that some of the multi-household houses in this case is a third purchaser of part of the multi-household buildings in this case) (A) although there was no obligation or obligation between I and the supplementary participant, there was no secured debt so that the supplementary participant can acquire the multi-household houses in this case smoothly, and the debtor changed to L and the supplementary participant did not have any obligation or obligation. However, there was no obligation or obligation between L and the supplementary participant. Accordingly, the dividends to the defendant who was transferred the multi-household house from the supplementary participant in the auction procedure in this case are illegal. (B) The total sales proceeds of the auction procedure in this case (the whole multi-household 10 households in this case) are 71,400 won in total, and the sales proceeds of five households owned by the plaintiffs are 372,601,000 won in total (=372,601,000 won in total) and 48.30% in total for the five households owned by the plaintiffs (5 households).

3.2