멸실등기
1. All the primary and conjunctive lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of a site where the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) is located.
However, the building of this case is now demolished and now demolished.
In order to register the destruction of the building of this case, the Plaintiff seeks the implementation of the procedure for the registration of destruction and loss around the Defendant registered as the owner of the building of this case and the preliminary implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer.
2. As to the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit ex officio, the judgment on the main action is examined.
Where a building is destroyed or lost, the owner of such building site may apply for registration of destruction or loss in subrogation of the registered titleholder of the ownership of the building under Article 43 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act
In addition, if there is a registration of the nonexistent building, the owner of the building site may apply for the registration of destruction in subrogation of the registered titleholder of the building ownership pursuant to Article 44 (2) and Article 43 (2) of the same Act.
Therefore, even without the co-application or consent of the defendant who is the owner of the building, the plaintiff can implement the procedure for registration of destruction of the building that does not exist because it was already destroyed by the application for registration of destruction in subrogation of the defendant.
Ultimately, there is no benefit of lawsuit as to the main claim in the lawsuit of this case.
3. We examine, ex officio, whether this part of the lawsuit is legitimate.
If a building is destroyed, the registration form for the relevant building is closed, so there is no benefit of the plaintiff to seek the registration of ownership transfer against the owner on the register.
Therefore, the conjunctive claim part of the instant lawsuit also has no interest in the lawsuit.
4. According to the conclusion, the main and ancillary lawsuits of this case are all unlawful, and thus, they are dismissed as per Disposition.