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

Cheong-gu Office

It is as stated in the separate sheet of claim.

A. The Plaintiff is a title holder of registration of transfer of ownership finally completed with respect to 461 square meters of 00-1 forest land in Jeonnam-gun, ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○, ○○-gun, ○61

B. The registration of ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○ Branch and the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant BB’s name was completed on December 29, 1987, respectively. The registration of ownership transfer was based on the registration of each of the above immovables, and the Defendant Republic of Korea seized each of the above immovables. As to each of the above immovables, each of the instant mortgages was created with a maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million in Defendant CCC’s name and a maximum debt amount of KRW 240 million, respectively, and the Defendant D Card Co., Ltd. attached the immovables listed in paragraph (2) of the same Table.

C. As to the real estate listed in Paragraph 4 of the attached list, the registration of ○○ District Court ○○○○ Branch ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on June 5, 1990 and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the same date as of June 5, 199, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Republic of Korea on the ground of donation as of March 31, 200 received on March 31, 200, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of sale as of September 19, 200 and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○ was completed

D. As to the real estate listed in paragraph 5 of the attached list, the registration of ○○ District Court’s ○○○○ Branch and the registration of ownership transfer in the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 14, 1990 were completed on the following grounds: (a) the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 27, 2002 by agreement division No. 0000 on June 27, 2002.

E. As to the real estate listed in Paragraph 6 of the attached list, the registration of ○○ District Court’s ○○○○ Branch and the registration of ownership transfer in the above name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 14, 1990 were received on the same registration and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Republic of Korea on the ground of donation as 0000 on March 31, 200, the registration and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 19, 200 on the same registration and the receipt as 000 on June 27, 2002 were completed respectively.

F. However, when comparing the location of the instant real estate according to the forestry map and the location of each real estate indicated in the separate sheet based on the cadastral map, each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be included in or overlap with the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 5, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 4-1 through 6, the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal, the fact inquiry results with the 00 military office of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the main defense of this case

As the Plaintiff’s registration of each real estate listed in the separate sheet constitutes a duplicate registration of the instant real estate, Defendant BB, Korea, and EE are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as stated in the purport of the claim, and Defendant Republic of Korea, CCC, and D Card Co., Ltd., the interested parties in the registration due to attachment right holders, collateral security holders, provisional attachment right holders, etc., are obligated to consent to each of the above cancellation registration procedures. The Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is accepted, the registration of the instant real estate does not remain at all, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit does not have any benefit

On the other hand, the plaintiff's attempt to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration and consent thereto against the defendants on the ground of overlapping registration as above is a claim for removal of interference based on ownership. Whether the registration of each real estate in the separate sheet is duplicate registration or interfere with the ownership of the plaintiff's real estate in this case is a matter to be determined within the main text. The defendant's assertion alone does not lead to the plaintiff's lawsuit's interest in lawsuit. Thus, the above main safety resistance is without merit

B. Judgment on the merits

Since the plaintiff asserts as stated in the above paragraph (a) above, it is necessary to mark the same land. Thus, the identity must be identical between the land on which multiple overlapping registrations are indicated, and the current status of the land on the actual cadastral record should be recognized, and the identity of the land should be determined in substance by comprehensively taking into account the lot number, land category, area, etc. In this case, each land on which the registration of the real estate in this case is indicated and each real estate on which the registration of the real estate in the annexed list is indicated is indicated, shall not be deemed to have the identity of the land because its lot number, land category, area, etc. is different. However, in view of the location of the land on the cadastral record, such as the forestry map and the cadastral map, each of the above registrations shall be included in the real estate in the annexed list or overlap with a considerable part, and therefore, it shall not be deemed to have a relation of overlapping registration, separately

Therefore, even if the registration of preservation of ownership completed with respect to the instant real estate in household affairs is lawful and effective, unless the registration of each real estate listed in the separate sheet is a duplicate registration indicating the instant real estate, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff infringes on or interferes with the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on overlapping registration is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are without merit, and each of them is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.