B. Whether the subject matter of the claim is specified solely by the indication of the former parcel number and the land register

2. In a case where there is no special circumstance as to the specification of the subject matter of the claim, it is unclear whether the subject matter of the claim is specified only by the old lot number and indication of the cadastral record.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that Japan was the owner of the road-based land at the time of August 9, 1945, the old lot number and the land of Gwangju-si ( Address 1 omitted), Gwangju-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Ye-gu land for convenience"), which was located prior to the merger, based on the evidences of the city. The above recognition is just in light of the records, and it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the incomplete deliberation or the violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore there is no reason to view this issue (the case of the party members cited in the debate is not appropriate

However, according to the court below's decision, it is clear that the court below ordered the defendant to implement the procedure for recovery registration of ownership transfer registration entered in the register closed on the ground of merger of this case's land and the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration completed in the defendant's future on the ground that the current land was owned by the plaintiff and the ownership transfer registration of this case's land, which is part of the land combined in 94,490, Gwangju-si (No. 2 omitted), which is now owned by the plaintiff, is null and void.

However, registration entered in the closed register shall not be effective as the current registration, and its recovery procedure shall not be claimed because there is no legal provision as to it, and in addition, in the case where the former parcel number number number of 627 large 627 large 94,490 large 27 large 94,000 large 94,000 large 627 square meters of the current lot number, even if the record is recorded, there is no special circumstance as to the specification of the object of the claim, and in this case, it is unclear whether the object of the claim of this case can be deemed to be specified 627 square meters only by the former parcel number and the indication of the land register, and therefore, in conclusion, it cannot be said that there is any defect of illegality, which accepts the plaintiff's request without specifying the object of the claim which is not legally entitled to claim in the original judgment. In this regard,

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the attorney of defendant Gwangju-si.

In light of the record, it cannot be seen that the defendant market's original acquisition of this case's land by due process until the closing of argument in the court below's trial, or the acquisition by prescription has been completed or should be completed, and thus, the arguments premised on this cannot be accepted.

However, in this case ex officio, it cannot be said that the object of the claim is specified only by the old lot number and cadastral indication. The above co-defendant's ground of appeal is examined as follows. Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as to the object of the claim. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in this regard.

3. The defendant Seoul Trust Bank's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The first issue is that the court below ordered the defendant to implement the procedure of cancellation registration of provisional registration for preserving the defendant's right to claim the establishment of a right to collateral security against the land in the name of the defendant. However, the decision on this issue is reasonable and reasonable, and the second issue is that the acquisition of ownership of the land in this case in the defendant Gwangju-si is an original acquisition under the Land Expropriation Act. Thus, even if the record is recorded, it is not possible to find out any trace of the fact as argued until the closing of argument in the court below. Thus, this issue cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)