beta
Text
All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional part, thereby citing this case pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be determined additionally
A. On September 26, 2019, the Defendants asserted that F, the owner of the instant building, filed a lawsuit against each of the instant owners, including the Plaintiff, for the registration of cancellation of ownership on each of the instant land. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the instant lawsuit was unlawful in the event that the Plaintiff lost its ownership on each of the instant land.
However, even if the owner of the building of this case filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff seeking the registration of cancellation of ownership on each of the lands of this case, the lawsuit of this case seeking the withdrawal of the defendants based on the ownership of each of the lands of this case is not unlawful, but is merely an issue to determine whether the plaintiff lost ownership on each of the lands of this case or not. Thus, the defendants' prior defense on each of the lands of this case is without merit.
B. The Defendants’ assertion as to legal superficies and the Defendants’ assertion as to this point of view were to be considered to have been owned by the same person on March 10, 2005, and I sold the instant building to H in a state that it was not registered on March 10, 2005. Re-sale of the instant building to H in a state that M was unregistered on March 15, 2007. Since H purchased each of the instant land from G holding the land indicated in [Attachment List 1 and 2] and completed the registration of ownership on March 15, 2007, as the instant building and each of the lands listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2] were to have been owned by the same person. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the said land in a voluntary auction procedure for each of the lands listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2] on May 19, 2008 in accordance with Article 366 of the Civil Act.