2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

In the case of a building which has the form and structure that can be seen as an independent building under social norms even if it is not completed, the building owner at the time sold the building to another building and completed the procedure for change of name of the building owner.

Even if the original owner acquires a building at the original time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da24184, 24191, Mar. 12, 2002), it shall be deemed that the original owner satisfies the requirements of the building as an independent real estate if a minimum pole, roof, and main wall is made (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da16350, Apr. 26, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19415, Jul. 15, 2005). No error exists in the judgment of the first instance court on the validity of registration of initial acquisitor and initial acquisitor of each real estate of this case, and registration of initial ownership preservation.

Although the Defendant asserts that the dividend in the auction procedure of this case is a separate claim from the secured debt of this case, there is no evidence to prove it, and considering the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage was made on the same day, and the details and details of each registration, the above argument by

The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

[However, "L" (No. 20, No. 5, No. 13) of the judgment of the court of first instance is corrected as "D"] 2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.