1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's ground for the claim is the owner of the land indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the building of this case"), and the plaintiff is the owner of the land where the building of this case is located.

Around June 30, 1975, the Defendant sold the instant building to C, and thereafter C destroyed the instant building and newly built a new building.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the holder of a title on the registry, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for destruction of the building of this case that was already destroyed and did not exist.

2. Where a building is destroyed or lost ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case, a registered titleholder of the building shall apply for the registration thereof within one month from the time such fact occurs; and where the registered titleholder of the building fails to apply for the registration within one month, the owner of the building site may apply for the registration in subrogation of the registered titleholder of the building;

(See Articles 43(1) and (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 4422, Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter “Registration of Real Estate Act”) newly established the same provision as Article 43(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant building site, may file an application for registration of direct destruction of the building by subrogation of the Defendant, who is the registered titleholder of the instant building, who is the ownership of the instant building. As such, there is no interest in filing a lawsuit against the Defendant to seek implementation

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.