1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant 44,946.5% of each land listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 1963, the Defendant constructed B apartment and its ancillary facilities (hereinafter “B apartment”) with a total of 642 households, such as 4,940 households and 192 households, on the ground of a total of 44,946.5 square meters of land listed in the separate sheet of land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “B apartment”) in the attached sheet of land owned by the Defendant, and completed sale in lots and conversion in lots until 1967.

B. The buyers of B apartments completed the registration of site ownership with respect to the remaining shares, excluding 381.07/5/44,946/5 of the land owned by the Defendant from the land before replotting until 1991.

C. B apartment reconstruction association (hereinafter “instant association”) started removal of B apartment around June 14, 191, and started removal of B apartment on May 1, 1992 and started construction of reconstruction apartment on the land before replotting. On May 16, 1997, C apartment, which was reconstructed on May 16, 1997, was approved for use for C apartment (the total section for exclusive use, is 982, and hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On December 9, 199, the land before replotting was changed to each land listed in the annexed sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) on December 9, 199 through the procedures for the completion of land substitution and the adjustment of land partitioning, and became the land subject to the site ownership of the apartment of this case. The Defendant’s share in the land before replotting was changed to 78.249/5 of each land of this case.

E. On October 29, 1992, the Plaintiff purchased from the instant association No. 106, 303, among the apartment buildings of this case, the purchase price was paid in full. On October 23, 1997, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the section for exclusive use on the part of this case.

F. 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 instant lands. However, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant apartment in 107 Dong 1601, completed the registration of ownership transfer only with respect to the section for exclusive use, but did not complete the registration of site ownership.