1. The court below acknowledged the fact that the building of this case was constructed on the ground of the Gyeonggi-gun (No. 1 omitted), which was originally owned by the non-party, on May 6, 1970, because the number of the housing site number of this case was changed to (No. 1 omitted) March 30, 1974 due to the correction of the number of the housing site number of this case, and recognized the fact that the (No. 1 omitted) lot number was changed to the (No. 1 omitted) ground building on the registry at the request of the above non-party on October 10, 1975, and rejected the plaintiff's claim that the above registration was made on April 2, 1974 after the registration was made on April 2, 197.

2. However, according to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and Gap evidence Nos. 7-1,2 (No. 1 omitted), each official document, for which the court below was rejected, △△△△△, such as the Gyeonggi-do Yang-gun ( Address No. 2 omitted), has different land among them, and the cadastral map is 80 square meters, and the latter can be seen as 117 square meters. Thus, the two locations are the same as land, but the land is different from the case where the ○○○○○○△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, which is an official document No. 6 and each official document No. 7-2 (No. 1 omitted). Thus, since the building's structure, structure, size, etc. are identical to each other, it cannot be deemed as identical to one another, it cannot be deemed as being identical to the above building's own land registration, which becomes an important one with each other's own land registration, which becomes effective after the building's lot number being indicated.

3. If so, it is difficult to conclude that the above building was constructed on the ground of △△△△△△△△△△△△, but thereafter, whether only the lot number was changed to ( Address 1 omitted) or not, and the original ○○○○ and ( Address 1 omitted) the building was constructed on the ground ( Address 1 omitted). However, even if the lot number was erroneously indicated and preserved to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, it cannot be seen that only the lot number was changed to ( Address 1 omitted) and the lot number was changed to ( Address 1 omitted) and it was difficult to determine that the registration was null and void on April 2, 1974 with double registration, and that it is difficult to determine that the registration of the Plaintiff’s name was double registration and that the Plaintiff’s request was rejected without any further specification of the original land’s change in the land’s name, and it is difficult to find it difficult to find the reasons for the rejection of the Plaintiff’s request due to the lack of any further specification.

4. Therefore, the appeal for this case presented to include the purport of pointing out above points is reasonable, so the original judgment is reversed in accordance with Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)