In accordance with the evidence admitted by the court below, the court below held that the non-party newly constructed a block structure 46.72 square meters on the ground floor of Busan Seo-gu ( Address omitted) and sold to the plaintiff 4,482/2 shares of the above site ( Address omitted) on June 20, 1982 at 448.2 square meters of the above site, which is the site. The plaintiff completed the inspection of completion under the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Specific Buildings and completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on June 29, 1985. However, since the plaintiff transferred the building and the site of this case from the above non-party and completed the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to the above site, the above building was revoked to the head of Busan Seo-gu without the defendant's consent, and thus, the registration of completion became invalid on the ground that the above building was destroyed by the change in ownership, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above registration of completion became void on the ground that the above building was destroyed by the registration of ownership.

However, since the registration of this case is a requirement for the effective effect of a real right and is not a requirement for the validity of the registration of this case, if the registration of this case is cancelled without any cause, the validity of the real right would not be affected (Supreme Court Decision 79Da1447 delivered on October 10, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 81Meu923 delivered on September 14, 1982), and the original adjudication, as the plaintiff purchased the building of this case and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in its name through the process of the above recognition, the above registration of preservation of ownership is effective in accordance with the substantive relation, and the plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case, and even though the building of this case was not destroyed, if the registration of destruction was made without cause, the ownership of the plaintiff as to the building of this case shall not be lost

From the contrary, the judgment of the court below which denied the Plaintiff’s ownership is recognized to be contrary to the legal principles on the validity of the registration of destruction which is not consistent with the facts, and if it is not reversed, it is considerably contrary to the justice and equity, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Panel Division

Justices Yoon Jae-young (Presiding Justice)