가등기말소
Part of the claim for cancellation of additional registration in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
The plaintiff is the defendant among the real estate listed in the attached list.
1. An ex officio provisional registration prior to the determination on the part concerning the claim for cancellation of a supplementary registration is dependent on the provisional registration, which is an existing principal registration, and thus constituting a whole of the principal registration, and thus, where a security obligation is extinguished, only the cancellation of the provisional registration, which is the principal registration, should be sought, and even if the principal registration is not separately sought for cancellation, the above additional registration is cancelled ex officio. Thus, the claim for cancellation of the above additional registration is an unlawful claim that has no benefit in the protection
(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da17109 delivered on October 21, 1994, 2000Da19526 delivered on October 10, 200, etc.). In light of such legal principles, the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of provisional registration on the ground of health class and the extinguishment of secured obligation, who seeks the cancellation of provisional registration on the ground of the extinguishment of secured obligation, is the Plaintiff’s seek against the Defendants the cancellation of provisional registration indicated in the claim, which is the principal registration, and further, seeking the cancellation of additional registration prior to such provisional registration, is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights.
2. Determination on the claim for cancellation of provisional registration
(a) Indication of claims: Each description of the causes for claims and the changed causes of claims; and
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. In conclusion, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of additional registration among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and thus, the Defendants’ claim for cancellation of provisional registration is with merit, and thus, the secured claim of provisional registration was transferred to the net F.
While there is no evidence to prove that the transfer was notified to the Plaintiff, the fact that the secured claim was transferred to G and the fact that the notice was given to the Plaintiff is supported by evidence (see the evidence Nos. 4 and 5). It is so decided as per Disposition.