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

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Co-owners of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E site (hereinafter “instant land”) decided to construct business facilities buildings on the instant land, and obtained a new building permit from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 12, 1992 from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and registered a joint business on February 15, 1995 as a joint business proprietor.

(C) Even though the co-owners of the instant land have partially changed, new co-owners became members of C, even though they became members of C.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) A newly built an aggregate building of eight underground floors and twelve stories above ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant aggregate building”) on the instant land around October 2005.

Of the instant aggregate buildings, the underground 3 through 8 floors are parking lots (hereinafter referred to as "parking lots"), the underground 1 and 2 floors and the ground 1 floors are commercial buildings and office offices (hereinafter referred to as "commercial buildings"), and the 2 through 12 floors are 396 households of residential officetels (hereinafter referred to as "tels").

C only officetels among the instant condominiums were sold in lots, and the remaining commercial buildings were owned by the plaintiff et al.

Plaintiff

As a result of the co-owned property partition lawsuit (Seoul Southern District Court 2008Gahap248777, Seoul High Court 2010Na21209, Supreme Court 2012Da119504), the Plaintiff alone owns the commercial buildings listed in attached Table 1 List 2 (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned commercial buildings”) among the instant condominium buildings.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry into evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 12 through 16, 27 through 30, 54, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the governing law of this case as Korean law before the judgment of remanding.

Therefore, the Korean law is the governing law of this case.

3. Determination as to the main defense of this safety.