A. The network D completed the registration of ownership preservation on the real estate stated in the attached list with No. 729, such as official order branch offices of the Daejeon District Court on January 9, 2012. Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on January 9, 2012, such as official order branch offices of the Daejeon District Court on the above building, and the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on November 29, 201, under the Ordinance No. 793, such as official order branch offices of the Daejeon District Court on January 9, 201. Defendant C is registered as the owner.

B. Defendant B filed an application for a compulsory auction on the instant building based on the authentic copy of a ruling of recommending a compromise with executory power against Defendant C ( Daejeon District Court’s official branch G), and on November 26, 2018, the said court rendered a ruling to commence compulsory auction and registered the ruling to commence compulsory auction on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant compulsory execution”). C.

The network D died on November 5, 2019, and E, which is the subject of the lawsuit of Defendant D, succeeded to the network D with qualified acceptance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the Ha land and the I ground building in the state of non-registration of H land in 1974, and has been managed as the owner until now.

The registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant C was completed on the basis of the above registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant C, but the above status of the building was registered in the building ledger as the owner of Defendant C. However, the building in the above status existed on the ground of the JJ in the Gongju City, and was actually destroyed, and the building in the above I status was actually owned by the Plaintiff, rather than a farming house, and the building in the above I status was owned by the Plaintiff, rather than a farming house, and its area was equal to 40 square meters.

Therefore, the compulsory execution made by Defendant B on the building listed in the separate sheet on the basis of the executive title of Defendant C with respect to Defendant C should not be permitted, and registration of preservation of ownership as to the building listed in the new sheet in the new sheet that was completed in the future D.