1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, book stone companies, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, and stock companies.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as stated in 2. Paragraph 2., and that part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 12 and No. 12 is dismissed as stated in 3. Thus, this Court

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that “The Plaintiff may bring an action for confirmation of ownership, because the res judicata effect does not extend to the ownership that is the basis of the Plaintiff’s judgment even if the Plaintiff was rendered a cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation against Defendant B and C.” However, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant B and C for cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation along with a claim for confirmation of ownership. However, when the Plaintiff is ordered against Defendant B and C, the title holder of each of the instant officetels, among the instant officetels, to cancel the registration of ownership preservation, the registration of ownership preservation for each of the said shares may be completed according to the said judgment [Registration of Real Estate] [Registration of Real Estate] Article 65 (Applicant for Registration of Ownership) of the unregistered Land or Building, the registration of ownership preservation for the unregistered ownership, may be applied for by any of the following persons:

3. The meaning of “judgment” under subparagraph 2 of Article 65 of the Registration of Real Estate Act; and

C. The following judgments in the case of the above judgment constitute a judgment under Article 65 subparagraph 2 of the Act:

(1) In light of the judgment ordering the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on the ground that the pertinent real estate is owned by the applicant for registration of ownership preservation, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone is difficult to recognize the need to further seek ownership confirmation from the completion of registration of ownership preservation on Defendant B and C’s portion among the instant officetels to the extent that it is difficult to obtain ownership verification.

The plaintiff's assertion is correct.