소유권보존등기말소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 28, 2004, Nonparty C leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million, monthly rent of KRW 14 million, and the lease term of KRW 14 million from June 20, 2004 to June 19, 2009, respectively, with the purpose of operating the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance enterprise.
(hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease agreement". (b)
And on May 29, 2004, C established E Co., Ltd. (F on August 23, 2004, the trade name was changed to F on August 23, 2004, and the trade name was changed to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2010) for the purpose of the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance business.
C. After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, C obtained the Defendant’s consent on the removal of the instant building and the construction of a building on the instant land, and obtained a building permit under the Defendant’s name.
After that, the Plaintiff completed the construction of the above removal and new construction at the expense on December 16, 2004, the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). D.
Accordingly, on December 16, 2004, the building ledger for the building of this case was cancelled, and the building ledger for the building of this case was newly prepared, and on January 19, 2005, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed by the Seoul Central District Court No. 4138, Jan. 19, 2005.
(hereinafter referred to as the "registration of initial ownership"). 【No dispute exists concerning the registration of initial ownership of this case' (which is the ground for recognition), entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 18, 23 (which includes each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff asserted that since he newly constructed the instant building at his own expense, the building of this case was originally acquired by himself, and therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant as to the instant building should be cancelled.