The judgment below

The part concerning the conjunctive claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

In around 1963, the Defendant constructed B apartment units on each land listed in the list of previous land (hereinafter referred to as “land before land substitution”) in the lower judgment, completed the sale and conversion for sale by up to 1967, and the buyer of B apartment units completed the registration of site ownership as to the remainder of land except for the shares owned by the Defendant among the land before land substitution by up to 1991.07/44,946.5.

B. B apartment reconstruction association removed B apartment on May 1, 1992 and started construction of reconstruction apartment on the land before replotting, and obtained approval for use of the apartment of this case on May 16, 1997.

C. On December 9, 199, the land before replotting changed to each of the instant land through the procedure of land substitution and the completion of land partition rearrangement, and the Defendant’s above shares in the land before replotting changed to the share of 78.249/44,946.5 of each of the instant land.

On the other hand, on October 29, 1992, the Plaintiff purchased No. 1069, 303 of the apartment of this case from the B apartment reconstruction association, and paid the price in full. On October 23, 1997, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the section for exclusive use.

E. The buyers or owners of the apartment in this case completed the registration of transfer of ownership or the registration of site ownership on each of the land in this case. However, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the owner of the apartment in this case 107 Dong 1601, completed the registration of site ownership only with respect to the section for exclusive use, but did not complete the registration of site ownership.

2. The plaintiff, as the primary claim, includes each of the lands of this case into the land subject to the right to use site when the B apartment reconstruction association obtained approval for the use of the apartment of this case. Thus, as to the portion against the defendant, which is part of the defendant's share in each of the lands of this case, against the defendant in subrogation of B apartment reconstruction association.