1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

Around November 2010, the Defendant, who was in charge of the sale of the building B in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), filed an application for the alteration of the entire oil part of the collective building registry with the content of dividing the fiveth floor of the instant commercial building into ten (H-09 through 012, 015 through 017, 020 through 021) sales facilities on behalf of an international trust company, a trust company, into the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the alteration of the entire oil part of the collective building registry. The fiveth floor H zone was divided according to the contents of the application.

The fifth floor of the commercial building of this case was divided into several sections for exclusive use, such as the indication of the attached drawing.

On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the sales price of KRW 90,891,900 (including value-added tax) with the content that the portion of exclusive ownership of KRW 4.311 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) in the area of the fiveth floor H-021 on the ground among the instant commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 18,178,380 on the same day.

The store of this case is used as a department store as a whole, and the five floors among them are used as a clothing store.

In addition, the store of this case is currently being used as the clothes warehouse of the clothing store located on the present floor.

[Grounds] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, the result of the first instance court's on-site inspection, and the plaintiff's argument as to whether the whole purport of the pleading falls under the divided ownership of the store of this case as a result of the structural use, and the plaintiff's assertion as to whether the whole purport of the pleading is the divided ownership of the store of this case cannot be the object of divided ownership because it is invalid because the contract of this case aims to acquire divided ownership of the store of this case. Thus,

Judgment

Article 1-2 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act") is a sales facility or a transportation facility under the Building Act and one building.