Where there is a registration for the preservation of ownership invalid for the cause of debt collection among buildings composed of debt collection and paper collection, the person who separated and sold only the paper collection shall be entitled to request the cancellation of the registration for the invalidation thereof.

Even if the building has been sold to a third party, the cancellation of the preservation registration of the cause may be requested.

Kim Dong-dong Kim

Kim Cro-ray et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 4294 civil defense 1816, 1817 delivered on August 22, 1962, 200

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are the same as the statement in the grounds of appeal that was subsequently added.

(1) On the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the court below held that the above building was purchased based on the evidence indicated in the judgment, and that there was no violation of the law by the court below as to the non-party Nos. 1 and the non-party Nos. 1 and the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were constructed to use the building No. 6 under the Love Collection Act at the time when the building was constructed, and the above building No. 1 and the above building No. 2 were constructed for the purpose of using No. 1 and the above building No. 1 were purchased from the non-party No. 42, the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were purchased from the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were purchased from the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were purchased from the non-party No. 5 and the non-party No. 1 were purchased from the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 1 were the non-party No.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the summary of the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that "the original judgment is null and void because the plaintiff's preservation registration was original, the defendant Kim Young-ray's counterclaim claim (claim for cancellation of the plaintiff's preservation registration) was justified, but even if the defendant Kim Young-ro purchased the main building from the defendant Kim Young-ray, the registration cannot be filed, and if the registration is defective, the registration cannot be filed only for the preservation registration, and if there is no person liable for registration, and if the registration is included in the principal building registration, and if it is included in the principal building registration, the new preservation registration is completed, despite the unreasonable result that the court below never erred in the misapprehension of legal principles by citing the counterclaim of the defendant Kim Young-ray's counterclaim claim, or since the defendant Kim Young-ro sold the main building "" to the defendant Kim Young-ro, which was a separate ground for cancellation of the defendant Kim Young-ro's counterclaim's counterclaim claim, as long as it is decided that the defendant Kim Young-soo's counterclaim's claim should be void.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal are no longer acceptable or acceptable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-man (Presiding Judge) Mag-Mag-Mag-ri, the Mag-Mag-ri,