1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the delivery order of this case was unjustifiable when the original adjudication ordering the Plaintiff to deliver the real estate purchased by the Defendant in the auction procedure of this case on the premise that the real estate purchased in the auction procedure of Seoul Western District Court 2008ta, 10087 (hereinafter “the voluntary auction procedure of this case”) is the real estate possessed by the Plaintiff and its entry at the left side of the entrance of the third apartment house of Mapo-gu (hereinafter “multi-household house of this case”) located in Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “multi-household house of this case”). Rather, on the ground that the above contents indicated in the above register are recognized as identical to the real estate possessed by the Plaintiff and the registration indicated as identical to the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is effective as a registration indicating it.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the instant lawsuit is lawful on the grounds that an immediate appeal is allowed against a judgment on an application for extradition order, and thus, it becomes an executive title pursuant to Article 56 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Execution Act, and accordingly, the other party may file a lawsuit of objection against a claim pursuant to Article 44 of the Civil Execution Act in a case where there are grounds for excluding the executive force of

2. A. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that the instant lawsuit was lawful is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 136 of the Civil Execution Act.

B. However, the lower court’s determination that the extradition order of this case was unreasonable is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) Whether the registration of a building is effective as a registration disclosing the objective and physical status of the building in question, shall be determined depending on whether the location, lot number, type, structure, and size indicated in the register are consistent with the generally accepted social norms with the actual building (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3288 delivered on March 9, 190, etc.).

(2) According to the record, ① the area of the apartment floor of this case and the area of the section for exclusive use on the right side of the entrance of the 1 and 2nd floor is 50.44 square meters. The area of the section for exclusive use on the left side of each floor is 52.03 square meters. All three rooms, living rooms, kitchens, and bathing rooms, or one unit of their structure, size, etc. are different. ② On the drawings submitted at the time of registration of preservation of ownership for each apartment house, the area of each apartment house of this case was 01 on each floor with a smaller area of 01 on each floor with a smaller area of 02 on each floor. ③ The present door of each apartment house of this case was actually indicated as 02 on each floor at the right side of each floor and 01 on each floor at the right side of each apartment house of this case, unlike the above drawings, the Defendant sold real estate at the voluntary sale procedure of this case was 402 square meters on each floor and 523 square meters on each floor.

In light of the above legal principles and the above facts, it is reasonable to view that 02 of each floor from the 02th floor to the 2nd floor on the registry of the instant multi-household house is on the household located at the entrance left side of each floor, and 01 of each floor is on the household located at the entrance 01. The mere fact that the registration of 02 square meters on each floor is indicated differently from the indication on the registry is not on the ground that the registration of 02 square meters on each floor is on the 50.4 square meters of the area located at the entrance 04 square meters in each floor cannot be deemed on the ground that the registration of 02 square meters on each floor is indicated differently from the indication on the registry. Therefore, in the instant voluntary auction procedure, the Defendant should be deemed to have

(3) If so, the defendant constitutes the owner of the real estate possessed by the plaintiff and thus, the delivery order of this case based on the premise is justifiable. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below that the delivery order of this case is improper is erroneous, which erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)