1. As to each real estate attached to the Plaintiff,

A. On February 26, 2013, the defendant limited liability company and the defendant limited liability company are the following:

1. Defendant C asserts that it is improper for the Plaintiff to add the above Defendant to the Defendant during the proceeding. However, since the claim against the said Defendant was included in the original claim, and the omission of the said Defendant in the list of the Defendant appears to be a simple clerical error, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Claim against the other Defendants and any primary claim against the other Defendants

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion D, E, and F, an aggregate building on land and land, was owned by the Plaintiff. Some sale was made by way of completing the registration of ownership transfer for the pertinent building and housing site shares by each F shop.

In the meantime, the right to collateral security was established on some of the remaining stores owned by the plaintiff, and the right to collateral security was established on all the shares of the store remaining in the plaintiff at the time, although the right to collateral security should be established only for the shares of the site of the store.

Since then, Defendant B transferred the ownership of the land in a store remaining in the auction case due to the foregoing collateral security right to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article, the ownership transfer registration, etc. was completed in the remaining Defendants on some of the land D and E.

However, F is an aggregate building subject to sectional ownership, and the establishment of a collateral security right on the whole share of the land in the Plaintiff-owned store is against the prohibition of separate disposal under Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings”). Therefore, the registration of the Defendants stated in the purport of the claim based on such prohibition is all null and void.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to cancel the registration as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2).

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the judgment is based on the premise that it is an aggregate building of F.C.

1 If part of the relevant legal doctrine can be the object of sectional ownership, that part.