The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasons stated in its holding, the court below did not have any evidence to find that (1) the above shares are treated as representing the sectionally owned co-ownership relation as to a specific part of the land prior to subdivision in the Busan District Court K real estate auction procedure where the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) purchased 164/1620 shares of the land prior to subdivision on June 7, 2013, and thus, (2) there is no evidence to find that appraisal and the lowest auction price determination have been conducted and auction have been conducted. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) lawfully acquired 4920/4860 shares out of the entire land prior to subdivision and thereby, the mutual title trust relation as to the land prior to subdivision was extinguished. (2) The co-owners of the land

Even if the evidence submitted up to the date was divided into the instant land and the Busan Seo-gu JJ 226.3 square meters, and the said J land was incorporated into the road site, it was insufficient to recognize that there was a co-ownership agreement with each co-owner to specify the location and area of the instant land, and that each co-owner has reached an agreement to exclusively vest the specific portion among the co-owners.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and duly admitted evidence, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sectionally owned co-ownership, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.