1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

The gist of the instant land is that the Plaintiff shares 700/755 shares, and the net Y(Z, hereinafter “the network”) shares 5/755 shares. However, the Plaintiff actually owned the part “A” and the deceased specified the portion “B” of the instant land.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff received and confirmed a judgment of ownership transfer on the ground of cancellation of mutual title trust against the deceased’s heir. However, since the contents of partition of co-owned property as to the instant land are not included in the text of the judgment, the performance of partition procedure as to the instant land does not exist. Therefore, the judgment

Judgment

In the mutual title trust relation or sectionally owned co-ownership relation, a person who partitioned ownership of a specific part of a building may seek the implementation of the procedure for share transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust as to the specific part against the person holding a share registration in a trust relation, but may not seek a partition of co-owned property as to the whole building.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da84171 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on health stand, the instant land has a mutual title trust relationship or sectionally owned co-ownership relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the heir of the deceased, and thus, a co-ownership claim for partition of co-owned property is not allowed to

In addition, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendants the implementation of the procedures for share transfer registration based on the termination of title trust for a specific part. It is acknowledged that the judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da4491 Decided May 24, 2017) became final and conclusive. The acquisition of real right to real estate based on the judgment is not required to be registered (Article 187 of the Civil Act).

Therefore, this case.