1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant’s husband, who is the Defendant’s basic facts, extended the housing of 1st floor of the Bupyeong-gu, Ansan-si, the Masan-si, the Mansan-si, the Plaintiff’s husband, to two houses, such as the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

Accordingly, the registration of change of indication was completed on February 10, 2009 due to extension of the building of this case.

The defendant is the plaintiff's own wholesaler who occupies the second floor of the building of this case.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Even if the extension of an existing building registered as a legally one real estate has independence in structure and use that can serve as the object of sectional ownership, this does not immediately mean that the extension portion is a legally existing building and a separate building. In order to become a sectional ownership of the owner of the extension part, there should be an act of classifying the extension part objectively. In cases where a registration of change of indication of a building has been made due to an extension in accordance with the current state of the existing building after the extension, barring any special circumstance, the owner intended to regard the extension portion as a sectional ownership and to make one building the existing whole building after the extension as a single building, without regard to the extension portion as a sectional ownership.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da32540, Jul. 27, 1999).

In light of the above legal principles, as long as registration of change of the indication of a building has been made due to extension in line with the current status of the existing building after extension, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased C and the Plaintiff intended to make the existing whole of the building after extension as one building without regard to the extension of the building as a sectioned building. Therefore, the part of the extension of the building of this case is also owned by the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the existing building.

C. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the owner of the instant building is the owner.