1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the first floor C of the building in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant building No. 1”) and the same floor D (hereinafter “instant building No. 2,” and the combination of each of the above buildings is referred to as “each of the instant buildings”).

B. On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the alteration (hereinafter “instant application”) of the full oil registry to the effect that each of the instant buildings is to be combined into a single building (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On June 26, 2018 and July 18, 2018, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to supplement the following:

[Supplementary Matters] The relation to the modification of the application for cancellation of rights other than the registration of ownership, lease on a deposit basis, and lease (ownership) pursuant to Article 17(3) of the Rules on the Entry, Management, etc. of Building Register (hereinafter “Rules of this case”).

D. On August 1, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the instant application on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform the said supplementary measures (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant disposition is deemed unlawful on the ground that the instant disposition is written only as “adembing the application form (related to ownership)” and does not contain specific grounds, statutes and violations. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful due to procedural defects that do not present the grounds and reasons for the disposition.

B. Although the provisional attachment registration, attachment registration, and auction commencement registration are completed with respect to each of the buildings of this case, the remaining registrations other than the attachment registration of June 19, 2017 shall be completed in the same manner as the date of receipt, grounds for registration, right holders, and other matters, and thus, even if permission for the merger of each of the buildings of this case is granted, it is not likely that the right holder’s right may be infringed, and the proviso to Article 42(1) and Article 37(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act shall also be in