1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Dong Building Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Construction”) newly built five-story apartment buildings in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”).

On December 31, 1974, Dong Asia Construction completed the registration of preservation of ownership as to the above apartment 510 square meters, 221.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant apartment 510 square meters”).

B. After that, on June 19, 1990, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the 1/2 share of each of the 510 shares in the land of this case in the E/F on June 19, 1990.

C. Plaintiff B’s share due to sale on May 16, 2003, Plaintiff A transferred F’s share due to inheritance due to consultation and division on February 6, 2004, and completed each registration of ownership transfer in its name.

On August 29, 201, G, the owner of the instant apartment No. 110, G filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration against Dong Construction and the Plaintiffs, asserting that the instant ground No. 510 on August 29, 201 cannot be the object of sectional ownership.

On November 19, 2012, the judgment was rendered on November 19, 2012 to cancel all the preservation of ownership and registration of transfer with respect to 510 of the instant land floor (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga314201), and the said judgment was finalized on February 13, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant prior suit”). (e)

On March 6, 2014, according to the execution of the judgment of the preceding lawsuit in this case, the registration of transfer of ownership by E, F, and the plaintiffs was cancelled.

F. On August 25, 2014, when the instant lawsuit was pending, the rehabilitation procedure for the East Asia Construction commenced, and the Defendant was appointed as a custodian.

In the above rehabilitation procedure, the plaintiffs reported the damage claim for the East Asian Construction as a rehabilitation claim, but the defendant denied it.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' primary assertion: The construction of East Asia is a real estate which can be traded independently after the completion of registration of preservation of ownership with respect to 510 on the ground floor of this case, which cannot be the object of divided ownership.