All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In cases where a constructor of an aggregate building has a right to use a site, and where the registration of ownership transfer is completed only with respect to a sectioned building without registering a right to a site, the current owner of a sectioned building may apply for the registration of transfer of right to use a site jointly with the constructor, and simultaneously with the above application, an application for registration

(See Article 60(1) and (3) of the Registration of Real Estate Act (see Article 60(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Thus, the current owner of a partitioned building may not seek implementation of procedures for change of site ownership based on Article 60-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which was deleted following the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act by Supreme Court Regulation No. 2025 on May 30, 2006.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s reasoning was partially inappropriate, but the court below, which dismissed all of the instant lawsuits filed on the premise that the execution of procedure for change of a right to a site may be claimed by a lawsuit for change of a right to a site, did not err and adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2.(a)

However, the record reveals the following facts.

1) Defendant C and net N newly built the instant building on the instant land owned by them. Despite being nine households, they included P, which is a non-existent section of exclusive ownership on June 11, 1992, and registered the ownership ratio of each section of exclusive ownership in proportion to the total size of ten households, while registering the ownership of all of the site ownership.