1. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on May 31, 2016 is revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Duyang-si, a total of three buildings, including the building No. 2 of the former B (the brick lub roof multi-story house and the building that was approved for use on October 19, 1978; hereinafter “the building in this case”) owned by the network C (hereinafter “the deceased”) on the ground of the B B B B 633.4 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) during Ansan-si, Anyang-si, a total of three buildings, including the building No. 2 of the former B (the brick lub roof multi-story house, and the building that was approved for use on October 19, 1978; hereinafter “the building in this case”). On May 12, 2002, the deceased died, and the Plaintiff, his spouse D and ASEAN inherited each of the building in this case by 3/5 shares, and 2/5 shares.

During the period of separation, EF D 13,639.3/22,22,204.0 13,639.0/22,204.0/22,204.0/22,22,204.7/22,204.0/22,565.0/22,22,204.0/22,22,204.0/22,22,204.0/22,22,204.0/22,22,204.0/22,204.0/22,204.0

B. There was a legal dispute between the interested parties, including D and Plaintiff, over the ownership of the land before subdivision. However, the land before subdivision was subdivided according to the Suwon District Court’s conciliation rendered on March 30, 2007 in Suwon District Court Decision 2006Da23721, and the recommendation for reconciliation made on April 27, 2009, which was finalized on April 27, 2009 in Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gadan4786, and among them, D and the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant land as follows.

C. Meanwhile, the instant building was registered on one building register along with the remaining two buildings on the ground before subdivision, but most of the instant buildings were located on the ground of each of the instant land, as described in the separate sheet No. 1 via subdivision process.

On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for separate registration of the instant building (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant notified on May 31, 2016 that “it is impossible to accept an application for separate registration of the instant building as it goes against Articles 57(2), 58, and 61 of the Building Act.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). E.