1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, except for modification to FL, FM, FN No. 23 of the judgment of the court of first instance to FL, GC, and GD.

(However, the part related to the joint plaintiff A management body of the first instance that did not file an appeal among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance is excluded). 2. Judgment on the argument at the appellate court

A. 1) Claim that cancellation can be demanded based on the act of preserving common property is that the right to use the site for the Plaintiff’s association is the common use area of all sectional owners using the site for the purpose determined by the entire sectional owners of the original building of this case. The designated parties, among all sectional owners of the original building of this case, may seek cancellation of the follow-up registration of this case against the Defendants based on the act of preserving common property. 2) The right to use the site held by the sectional owners of the aggregate building of this case is exclusively owned by the said sectional owners, and

A sectional owner shall not be deemed to fall under the section for common use that can be used for the prescribed purpose.

In addition, even if the transfer registration of ownership completed in the name of a third party with respect to the shares owned by another co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's ownership becomes null and void, seeking the cancellation of the transfer registration that does not infringe his/her shares in the co-owner's ownership is externally claiming the ownership of another co-owner's co-owner's ownership, and thus cannot be deemed an act of preserving

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da9980 Decided August 27, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, a person who lost his/her share in the site due to the instant disposal act is the Plaintiff Union, the owner of FKdong, which is the Plaintiff Union. The instant claim is intended to recover by cancelling the transfer’s share in the site that was transferred to the Defendants on the ground of the invalidity of the FKdong Building’s share, which is the Plaintiff Union’s ownership.