1. The part of the claim for cancellation of provisional registration before provisional registration in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall attach attached Form to the plaintiff.

1. The following facts are acknowledged as having no dispute between the parties, or as having taken account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, and 2:

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the real estate stated in the order on August 30, 1994 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). D on the same day, on April 20, 1989, completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”).

B. On November 2, 2011, the Defendant transferred the right to claim for ownership transfer registration with respect to the instant real estate from D, and completed the supplementary registration before the purport of the claim regarding the instant provisional registration on November 17, 201 (hereinafter “instant supplementary registration”).

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on July 2, 2014 upon the application of the creditor corporation for open auction, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated as E in this court regarding the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff received such sale and paid in full the sale price on February 1, 2016.

2. The supplementary registration before provisional registration of the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the supplementary registration among the lawsuit in this case is lawful is subordinate to the provisional registration, which is an existing principal registration, and is not a new registration separate from the principal registration. Thus, in cases where there are grounds for invalidation in the provisional registration, which is the principal registration, the cancellation of the provisional registration, which is the principal registration, is only sought, and even if there is no separate request for cancellation, the provisional registration based thereon is cancelled ex officio following the cancellation of the principal registration. Thus, the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the additional registration is unlawful because there is no benefit in protecting rights.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da17109, Oct. 21, 1994). With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff sought not only the instant provisional registration but also the cancellation of the instant supplementary registration due to the lapse of the exclusion period.