1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Form No. 1 (hereinafter “First Building”); Defendant C is the owner of the second building listed in the attached Form No. 2 (hereinafter “Second Building”); Defendant C is the owner of each building in combination with the first building; Defendant D is the owner of the land in which the second building is located (the land in the area E in the city of Busan).

B. On July 22, 2015, the first building was registered as a preservation of ownership on the commission of registration of commencement of auction of real estate on July 22, 2015, but it was not yet approved, and the second building is still unregistered.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 11, 15 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of fact-finding to the head of this court which is the port of tolerance.

2. The defendant's decision on this safety defense asserts that since the first building had already been registered as a preservation of ownership, the plaintiff's claim for the implementation of the procedure for changing the name of the owner of the building is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

Unlike the case where a construction work is completed and a pre-use inspection is completed and a pre-use inspection is completed in the name of a building owner under the Building Act, if a pre-use registration is completed without completing all necessary procedures, such as various reports, applications, etc. under the Building Act, which could be seen as an independent building, the original acquisitor of the building may complete the construction in accordance with the permitted contents under the Building Act by changing the name of the building owner in his/her future and implementing various procedures, such as filing reports, applications, etc. under the Building Act until the legitimate use of the building is completed. In such a case, the lawsuit claiming that the building is a legitimate original acquisitor of the building and seeking implementation of the procedure for title change is the benefit of the lawsuit.