2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

2. Judgment such as the entries in the list of claims in Appendix 5.

A. The Sungho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maho Construction”) newly constructed rental houses with a total of 1,362 households on the ground (location omitted) at the time of Gwangjuyang-si (hereinafter “instant rental houses”) and completed registration of preservation of ownership on July 7, 1998, after obtaining approval for use on May 11, 1998. The Plaintiffs are the lessees of each of the instant rental houses listed in [Attachment 3 and 4] list among the instant rental houses.

B. On December 6, 2007, the Sungyang Construction completed the supplementary registration that, except for the establishment of a limited real right for the National Housing Fund, this housing shall not establish a limited real right or conduct any act of restricting ownership such as seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, etc. without the lessee’s consent (hereinafter “the supplementary registration of this case”).

C. On April 15, 2010, Hoho Construction notified tenants of the instant real estate of the date of application for conversion for sale in lots from April 15, 2010 to April 25, 2010. On June 10, 2010, the public notice was posted to the effect that negotiations with lessees on the conversion for sale in lots have ended and the period of extension is maintained as rental apartments.

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on June 28, 2010, Hoho Construction: (a) on December 18, 2009, at the Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court’s Gwangju District Court’s Gwangju District Office, a notice of individual visit to conversion for sale in lots on February 25, 2010; (b) notice of subscription for conversion for sale in lots on April 15, 2010; (c) notice of subscription for sale in lots on April 15, 2010; and (d) notice of subscription for sale in lots from April 15, 2010 to April 25, 2010; and (d) 60 days from the date of notification of the subscription date for sale in lots, the instant real estate was subject to cancellation of the registration application for additional registration under Article 40(3) of the Housing Act’s Article 40(1) of the Housing Act’s registration No. 1195; and (d) notice or cancellation date in column 105, “10 years or 10 days”.

E. On June 28, 2010 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 45, 54 through 56, 62 through 97, the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 19147, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 70 through 82, listed in the separate sheet No. 3, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 46 through 52, 57 through 61, 98 through 104 listed in the separate sheet No. 19148, Jun. 28, 2010; the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 No. 20929, Jul. 9, 2010; and the real estate No. 533 in the separate sheet No. 4, Jul. 28, 2010, each of the instant additional registrations was cancelled as the grounds for registration.

F. On June 28, 2010, the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4, was transferred to the Defendant-based limited liability company (i.e., a limited liability company) and to the Defendant-based limited liability company (i.e., a limited liability company) the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (i.e., a limited liability company) was transferred to the Defendant-based limited liability company (i.e., a limited liability company).

G. On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for conversion of the instant rental housing to 749 households out of the instant rental housing, and filed an application for conversion of the said housing to sale with 90 households in addition to 151 households owned by Nonparty and 38 private rental business operators on November 3, 2010, as well as 151 households owned by them, and the Gwangjuyang Market notified that conversion of the instant rental housing was approved on the same day, and the instant real estate is not included in the households approved for conversion of the sale to sale to sale to sale.

H. Since then, changes in the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate are recorded in the list of real estate ownership transfer in annexed Form 6.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9 through 11 (including each number), the inquiry result of the court of the first instance to the Mineyang Registry Director, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

Since Hoho Construction cancelled the additional registration of prohibited matters on the ground of notification of occupancy date even though there was no disposition of approval of conversion for sale in lots by the competent agency on the instant real estate, the Defendant and the Intervenor who comprehensively held the lessor’s status as the owner of the instant real estate (hereinafter “acquisition Intervenor”) shall recover the registration of prohibited matters.

(b) Intervenors taking over;

① The provisions governing additional registration of prohibited matters of the Rental Housing Act are not applicable to the instant rental housing that had been approved prior to its enforcement, and thus, construction in Sungho has the right to cancel the additional registration.

② Since the person liable for registration of recovery of the instant supplementary registration is the owner at the time the supplementary registration is cancelled, the Intervenor is not eligible to be a party. Moreover, seeking registration of cancellation of the supplementary registration that was prior to the owner who is the current registered titleholder is not permissible under the Registration Act.

③ Each claim filed by the Plaintiffs against the Intervenor is unlawful as it does not satisfy the subjective requirements of co-litigation.

④ Since the provisions for additional registration of prohibited matters of the Housing Act guarantee that a rental house was constructed as a rental house and the ownership was acquired by conversion for sale in lots, this case’s additional registration cannot be deemed to have been illegally cancelled in violation of the Housing Act.

3. Determination

(a) The relevant registration rules and statutes;

Attached 7 as stated in the registration rules and the list of statutes.

B. Whether the prohibition provision on the apartment of this case is applied to the additional registration provision

On December 26, 2002, the additional registration of prohibition under Article 18(2) of the Rental Housing Act, which was introduced at the time of partial revision of the Rental Housing Act, was required to be applied to a rental business operator who is under lease after the completion of registration of initial ownership preservation pursuant to Article 12-3(3) of the Rental Housing Act as amended on July 19, 2007 (Article 18(3) of the current Rental Housing Act. Accordingly, since the instant real estate is subject to Article 18(2) of the Rental Housing Act, registration of prohibition should be completed.

C. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

1) Whether the person liable for registration of cancellation of additional registration of prohibited matters is recognized

According to the provisions related to additional registration of prohibited matters under the Rental Housing Act, in principle, the additional registration of prohibited matters under the Rental Housing Act shall be completed by a rental business operator’s application, and its cancellation shall be completed by a rental business operator’s application, ex officio or at the court’s request, and the creditor may apply for the registration by subrogation of the debtor under Article 404 of the Civil Act and Article 28 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. In light of the following, it is reasonable to deem that a rental business operator’s creditor can apply for the cancellation or cancellation of additional registration by subrogation of the rental business operator, by proving that the right to be preserved and the cause for cancellation or cancellation of the registration has been preserved. In addition, in the procedure of cancellation or cancellation of additional registration of prohibited matters, it is impossible to think of the concept of the person liable for registration, and thus, filing a lawsuit for cancellation or cancellation registration is unlawful, barring any special circumstance, by failing to satisfy the party’s standing or failing to meet the interest of lawsuit).

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff is the person entitled to claim for sale in lots against the rental business operator of the instant real estate in lieu of a rental business operator by proving that the registration of cancellation of the additional registration of the instant prohibited items is unlawful, and where there is a third party having interests in the registration, the Plaintiffs cannot file a claim by lawsuit for the registration of restoration of the additional registration of the cancelled prohibited items in addition to his written consent or a certified copy of the judgment against it. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit against the Plaintiffs’ Intervenor is unlawful.

2) Regarding the person liable for registration of recovery of general cancellation ( Note 2 to family judgment)

In a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for recovery registration of cancelled registration, only the person liable for recovery registration is the defendant. Thus, in the case where the provisional registration or the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is cancelled after the provisional registration or the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed in the third party with respect to any real estate on which the provisional registration or the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed, the person liable for recovery registration is the owner at the time of cancellation of the provisional registration or the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage. Thus, the claim for recovery registration of the provisional registration or the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage shall be filed against the owner at the time of cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Da1617, Mar. 18, 1969; 2006Da43903, Oct. 15, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles, the owner at the time of cancellation of additional registration of the prohibition of the real estate of this case was sexually constructed. As seen earlier, the claim for cancellation of additional registration of the prohibition against this case against the participant who acquired the real estate of this case from the above Hoho Construction against the acquiring intervenor who acquired the real estate of this case before the transfer from the above Hoho Construction is unlawful as a lawsuit against the non-party

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case against the acquiring participant is dismissed in its entirety, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Judge)

(1) On February 10, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2005Gahap9997 Decided February 10, 2006 appealed as Seoul High Court 2006Na35379, and the appeal was dismissed on February 13, 2007. The appeal was again filed by the Supreme Court 2007Da22705, but was dismissed on June 1, 2007.

Note 2) On the premise that the concept of the person obligated to register for recovery can be recognized in the procedure of registration cancellation of additional registration of cancellation of prohibited matters under the Rental Housing Act.