B. Whether a request for the performance of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust can be made with the request for the performance of the procedure for cancellation registration based on the invalidation of cause

(c) The legality of a cancellation registration lawsuit filed against only the last registrant, among a series of registrations of ownership transfer made in sequence on the basis of the first registration of ownership transfer that has been made without any cause.

(d) Whether a judgment ordering cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to a part of a specific parcel of land without issuing an order to divide the land is impossible execution or not;

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer of the Defendant’s title to the land is based on the title trust, but, on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer of the Defendant’s title to the same land is invalid, a change in the exchange with the claim seeking cancellation is merely a different legal composition in the dispute over the same living facts or economic interests, and thus, there is no change in the foundation of the claim.

C. The lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the first ownership transfer registration and a series of ownership transfer registration completed in sequential order on the basis thereof, is not a requisite co-litigation, and thus a person entitled to claim the cancellation may claim against each person liable for registration, respectively. Thus, even if only the last registrant is seeking the cancellation of the registration among the above series of ownership transfer registration, it cannot be said that the judgment in favor of the person liable for registration becomes an impossible execution, or that there would be no benefit in the lawsuit, because the judgment in favor of the person liable for registration could not bring about the realization of the final right.

D. The registration authority who received the order to cancel the ownership transfer registration for a part of the land specified in one parcel of land can cancel the registration of ownership transfer after completing the procedure for the divisional registration for the specific part of the land by subrogation of the person liable for registration, even though there is no separate entry in the order ordering the partition of the land, so the registration authority cannot execute the judgment ordering the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration for a part of the land of one parcel of land without ordering the partition of the land.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 2 was the owner of the above non-party 1 at 580 square meters of Cheongju-si, and that the non-party 1 was the owner of the above non-party 2 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and that the non-party 1 was the owner of the above non-party 2 at the time of the purchase of the above land and the remainder (b) so that only the above non-party 2 was small, but the State did not divide the above land into (a) and (b) and the above non-party 2 was the owner of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2 was the owner of the above non-party 4 at the time of the sale of the above land, and that the non-party 2 was not the owner of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 was the owner of the above land at the time of the purchase and sale of the above land, and it again recognized that the non-party 2 sold the above part to the non-party 1.3.

This paper argues that even according to the facts of the original judgment, the plaintiff is not the owner of the above part (A) and it is evident that the prescription of the right to claim the cancellation of the registration in the above part (i) has expired because it is evident that the registration in the above part (i) has no right to claim the cancellation of the registration in the defendant's name. However, it is clear that the court below held that the plaintiff can claim the cancellation of the registration in the order of subrogation of the true owner's rights in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration in the buyer's status, instead of recognizing the right to claim the cancellation of the registration in the above part (i) on the premise that the plaintiff has ownership in the above part (i). In addition, the plaintiff's new argument that the right to claim the transfer registration in the former part is already extinguished due to the expiration of the prescription of the right to claim the transfer registration in the former part (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da148, Nov. 6, 1976).

In addition, since the court below recognizes that part of the above part of the land was cultivated at the time of distribution of farmland, it should be deemed that the whole land of the above part of the land remains as farmland at the time of distribution of farmland, notwithstanding the fact that the whole land of the above part of the land was converted into a site, it is erroneous, but even if the part of the land already converted into a site was cultivated by construction of a house, it is merely a temporary method for use of the land and that the part was cultivated as farmland, and therefore, it is not reasonable to accept the argument.

2. Judgment on the third ground for appeal

According to the records, in the first instance court of this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name for the above part (a) is based on the title trust, but at the end of the original trial, the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name for the above part was changed to the claim seeking cancellation on the premise that the registration of invalidation of the cause exists as in the above opinion of the court below. Since the above two claims are different from the legal composition for resolution in disputes over the same living or economic interests, it cannot be said that there is any change in the foundation of the claim, the court below's decision to accept the alteration of the plaintiff's above claim is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles on the modification

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5

A lawsuit seeking the first registration of ownership transfer made without any cause and the cancellation of a series of registration of ownership transfer made in succession on the basis thereof is not a requisite co-litigation, and thus, a person entitled to claim the cancellation thereof may claim against each person liable for registration, respectively. Therefore, even if a person seeking the cancellation of the registration against only the last registrant among the above series of registrations of ownership transfer is seeking the cancellation of the registration, it cannot be said that the judgment in favor of the person liable for registration becomes an impossible execution or would not bring about the realization of the final right, making it impossible to bring about no benefit in the lawsuit

In addition, even though the person entitled to registration who is ordered to cancel the ownership transfer registration for a part of the land specified in one parcel of land does not have any entry in the order ordering the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, the registration of ownership transfer can be cancelled after the procedure for the registration of the subdivision of land is completed on behalf of the person liable for registration based on the judgment, in lieu of the person liable for registration, in subrogation of the specific part of the land. Therefore, the judgment ordering the cancellation of the

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)