1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows. The plaintiff’s explanation of this case is made by the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and the ground for the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (3) above, is the same as the ground for the second instance judgment, and thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The "reduction of claims" in the 5th 16th 2th 2th 5th 16th 16th 2th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 100 each amendment of claims.

5. 18 degrees 18 shall be applied by cutting "one floor on the ground" into "Ground 1 floor".

3. The further determination of this Court

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion is an independent building should be determined on the basis of “the time of the suspension of construction.” Since the construction of columns, main walls, and 1st basements with the first floor above the ground level was completed in the underground lower part at the time, the part of the first floor above the ground level among the completed buildings in this case can be deemed as an independent building.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the evidence revealed earlier, evidence Nos. 7, evidence Nos. 31, 33, 41, and 44, and each video of evidence Nos. 35, and 42, the purport of the entire pleadings was revealed in light of the following circumstances: (a) the part of the first floor among the completed buildings of this case is not equipped with the structure and form as a building due to the failure to complete the walls, floors, ceilings, etc.; and (b) thus, it is difficult to view it as a building having the substance as an independent customer under social norms.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of ownership cannot be accepted on the premise that the part of the first floor among the completed buildings in this case is an independent building owned by the Plaintiff.

① Clearly, the Plaintiff asserts that the part of the 1st floor of the instant incomplete building is a building having the substance as an independent customer entity under social norms. This is, namely, confirmation of past legal relations, around March 1998, at the time of the discontinuance of construction.