1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when the judgment is used or added as follows.

2. Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is either written or added, the phrase “the instant real estate” (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as “the boiler room” (hereinafter “instant boiler room”).

Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, “The owner of the instant commercial building and the owner of the instant real estate” in Part 5 is deemed to read “the owner of the instant commercial building (the Plaintiff has a large number of real estate on the basement, the first floor, and the second floor of the instant commercial building) and in the boiler room of the instant commercial building.”

Each "the real estate of this case" in the 7th and 5th of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be considered as "the boiler room of this case" respectively.

The lower part of the second part of the judgment of the first instance to “the sectional owner” of the fourth part to “the third part” of the lower part is as follows:

The following is added to the end of Section 8 of the first instance judgment, “The owner of the instant shopping mall, who is the co-owner of the boiler room of this case, has the duty to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion as above).”

Therefore, even if the objective purpose of use is changed by arbitrarily altering the section of the building which is the common area at the time of the establishment of divided ownership, or the registration of preservation of ownership was made on the collective building ledger by registering it as the section for exclusive use, and it does not constitute the object of exclusive ownership of any sectional owner, as the section for common use becomes the section for exclusive use (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da77212, May 27, 2016).

The judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.