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

The fact that there is no building ledger for the building indicated in the list (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case") does not conflict between the parties.

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed in order to preserve ownership in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the instant building pursuant to Article 65 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, but the provision that a person who proves his/her ownership by means of a judgment under Article 65 subparagraphs 2 and 4 of the Registration of Real Estate Act or other Special Self-Governing Province Governor or the head of Si/Gun/Gu may apply for the preservation of ownership in the form of a building ledger, is registered as the owner of another person, or the column for indicating the owner in the building ledger is a blank space or part of the owner’s indication cannot be confirmed due to the omission in the owner’s indication, it is reasonable to interpret that the claimant as the owner of the building may apply for the preservation of ownership by proving ownership in the form of a judgment or the said document, or that it is not possible to apply for the preservation of ownership in the form of a building, from the beginning with respect to which the

If such interpretation is not limited as above, in the case of registration of ownership preservation under the above provision, it is impossible to enter the fact that no approval for use was obtained in the register, and thus, it would result in aiding and abetting the evasion of the law on the regulation under the Building Act by having the same external appearance as the building was duly registered.

Ultimately, even if a judgment is rendered on confirmation of ownership of a building that has not been created by the building ledger, such judgment cannot be viewed as a judgment falling under Article 65 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and thus, it cannot be applied for registration of ownership preservation

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93428, Nov. 10, 201). Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision is reasonable.