1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the defendant's South-win.

On August 2, 2012, the Defendant acquired the ownership of C & 1,470 square meters of land and its ground (hereinafter in this case “instant land” and “instant building”) in the course of voluntary auction of real estate on August 2, 2012.

B. The instant building, which is an independent 2 bonds, was organized into a single registry.

In the title section of the registry, the first building among the instant buildings was indicated as “247.2 square meters of general steel structure and other secondary neighborhood living facilities of the second class neighborhood living facilities of the roof,” and the second building as “309.6 square meters of general steel structure and other secondary neighborhood living facilities of the second class neighborhood living facilities of the roof.”

C. The extension work on the instant building was conducted until May 28, 2013.

① The First Building, supra, was extended to the 2-story building with a total floor area of 502.5 square meters on the part of 655 square meters, which was connected in sequence with each point of indication 4, 3, 2, 1, 11, and 4 of the attached drawing among the instant land (hereinafter “First Building”).

② The building No. 2 was extended to two-story buildings with a total floor area of 627.3 square meters (hereinafter “the building No. 2”) as stated in the purport of the claim on the part of “b” part of 815 square meters, which was connected in sequence to each point of the attached drawing No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 4 among the instant land.

However, since the contents of extension in the register are not reflected in the register, the contents and actual status of the register are different.

After the Defendant acquired ownership of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff mainly managed the instant real estate including the conclusion of a lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the party court, the result of the party court's request for surveying appraisal by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to acquire the instant real estate at the above auction procedure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s acquisition cost is KRW 300 million.