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

However, the Defendants did not pay in full the sale price by January 7, 2010, which is the date of payment of the sale price, and the above court decided to re-sale in the above auction case on January 7, 2010.

However, the above court completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 15, 2010 under the name of the defendants who did not pay the sale price three days prior to the date of re-sale.

The above registration is null and void in violation of Article 138 of the Civil Execution Act, since the proceeds of sale have not been paid three days prior to the date of re-sale.

In addition, the defendants can not file an application for purchase with the former buyer during the re-sale procedure.

Therefore, since the registration in the name of the Defendants as to the above real estate is null and void, the confirmation is sought.

2. In order to seek confirmation of the invalidity of legal relations, there should be interests in confirmation. Since the Plaintiff does not have any legal relationship on the registration of the said real estate, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to be the genuine owner of the said real estate as the Plaintiff invested in the price at the time the said real estate was awarded in the name of the Defendants. However, it cannot be said that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidation on the ground of such reason.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.