1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. The defendant B shall have a unique number C registry.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 1998, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of preservation of ownership (registration of preservation of prior registration) was completed in the name of Defendant B. D, the father of the Plaintiff, was awarded a successful bid in the procedure for compulsory auction by the Seoul Northern District Court E compulsory auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 17, 2007.

B. However, on April 16, 2005, due to the commission of the decision to commence compulsory auction by the creditor F of the defendant B upon the request of the creditor F for compulsory auction by the creditor F, the registration of preservation of ownership (registration of preservation) was completed in the name of the defendant B in the new register (the identification number C).

C. Based on the registration of follow-up preservation, Defendant Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City completed each attachment registration on May 9, 2005, October 25, 2005, February 9, 2007, and December 26, 2012.

D Around August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff, the wife of Defendant B and ASEAN, jointly succeeded to D’s property, including the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into an agreement on the division of inherited property that the Plaintiff would own the instant real estate solely on February 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 17, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where a registration of initial ownership has been made in duplicate on the same real estate determined as to the cause of the claim, unless the first registration of initial ownership is null and void, the registration of initial ownership shall be deemed null and void under the Registration of Real Estate Act, which adopts the first land registration principle, unless the registration of initial ownership becomes void.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961 delivered on November 27, 1990). Therefore, there is no evidence to conclude that the preceding registration of preservation on the real estate in this case was null and void. Thus, the subsequent registration of preservation on the real estate in this case is null and void as a double registration.

Thus, Defendant B has a duty to cancel the registration of preservation after the invalidation, and each of them is based on the registration of preservation after the invalidation.