(b) The case holding that the court does not have a duty to explain even whether the applicant is a co-owner as a part of the preservation act of the article jointly owned on the premise that the person is a sole owner;

B. The case holding that the court does not have a duty to ask the applicant as part of the preservation act of the article jointly owned on the premise that the name of the building under the premise that it is a sole owner is a co-owner.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

If a registration of preservation of a building is not newly constructed by the nominal owner, the presumption of right to such registration shall be broken, and the nominal owner shall be liable to prove the fact that he/she has lawfully acquired ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 75Da2305, Apr. 26, 1977; 75Da205, Nov. 11, 1975; 66Da64,65, Mar. 22, 1966).

In full view of the facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below, that is, the acquisition and disposal process of the site located in Sung-dong, the process of approval for the restoration of government grain processing factory facilities, the construction process and use of the building of this case, the circumstances of the registration of preservation of ownership, and the location of the site ownership, etc., the building of this case is confirmed to be owned by the above deceased who was originally constructed on the site owned by the deceased non-party, and the building of this case was owned by his children, as he died on June 19, 1989, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case, which was completed in the name of the plaintiff's sole name, was destroyed by the presumption of right. Since the plaintiff received a donation from the above deceased on April 29, 1985, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case was just in light of the records, and there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of this case is valid in conformity with the substantive relations, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or precedents.

2. On the third ground for appeal

The court's exercise of the right to request the statement of the party shall be made to supplement the statement of the party or to urge the party who has the burden of proof when it is impossible to know the purport of the statement due to the inconsistency, defect, or omission of the statement. The court's exercise of the right to request the submission of the requirements or means of attack and defense which the party did not assert, shall not be permitted since it violates the principle of pleading (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da46209, Nov. 18, 1994; 91Da35106, Jun. 9, 192). In this case, where the plaintiff's attorney clearly asserted that the building of this case is owned solely by the plaintiff and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff is premised on the sole ownership of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the court has a duty to request the preservation of the common property as part of the act of preserving the plaintiff's property on the premise that the plaintiff is a co-owner who was not asserted in the course of the lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)