소유권이전등기
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff, as to the illegality of the lawsuit of this case, has been sold by the defendant in the past and thereafter registered as the first owner of the above partitioned building on the aggregate building register, but the registration of preservation of ownership was not yet made, and the registration of transfer as to the share of the site of the above partitioned building was not yet transferred from the defendant. The defendant, the owner of the share of the above partitioned building, is obliged to register the ownership of the above partitioned building as to the plaintiff's share of the site in accordance with the sale contract, and the lawsuit of this case against the defendant of this case, is seeking registration of change of ownership indication (change).
The plaintiff's request for site registration of this case was based on Article 60-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act No. 2025 of May 30, 2006). However, since the above provision was deleted on May 30, 2006 after amendment of the former Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act, it is not possible to seek implementation of the procedure for change of site ownership based on the already deleted provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da45777 of September 11, 2008). The right to site registration related to the right to use site of a sectioned building under the current Registration of Real Estate Act can be applied solely by the owner of a sectioned building who has the right to use site as the indication of the sectioned building under the current Registration of Real Estate Act (see Article 23(2) and (5) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, etc.).
Despite the above legal principles, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for site ownership registration is under the current Registration of Real Estate Act, claiming that the plaintiff had the obligation to register the site ownership in the future with respect to the partitioned building of this case from the above opposing point of view.