1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff’s assertion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The plaintiff asserts that the contract title trust agreement that the plaintiff entered into with the defendant with respect to the apartment of this case is effective with respect to the section of exclusive ownership of the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff pays local taxes with respect to the "land" portion of the apartment of this case, so the above title trust agreement is invalid in violation of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

The main text of Article 20(2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that “A sectional owner shall not dispose of the right to use site separately from his/her section of exclusive ownership.” There is no act of disposal of a site contrary to the unity of the section of exclusive ownership and the right to use the site (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da71578, Jan. 17, 2013). However, even if the Plaintiff paid local taxes, etc. on the land, which is the object of the right to the site of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have concluded a title trust agreement only with respect to the section of exclusive ownership of the apartment of this case, and there

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

2. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and all of the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.