1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 28, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “C”) on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on July 9, 2008.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 4, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “E”), and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 9, 2008 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s “Exchange on July 1, 2008.”

C. Meanwhile, on June 4, 2008, the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on three occasions, which is the debtor D, creditor’s “F organization,” and the grounds for registration, “contract on June 4, 2008.” On July 18, 2008, the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed on the ground of “acquisition of a contract on July 18, 2008,” changing the debtor of the registration of establishment of a mortgage to the plaintiff.

On July 18, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the correction of the registration purpose of the alteration of the right to collateral security (3) which was completed on July 18, 2008 by the Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) and the registration purpose of the alteration of collateral security (3) to “the right to collateral security (3)” as “the right to collateral security,” and “the right to collateral security (3)” as “the right to claim the instant claim” from the “acquisition of the contract on July 18, 2008.

(E) The first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of this case by deeming it unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit. The Plaintiff appealed against this determination. The Plaintiff appealed against this determination. 【The Plaintiff’s ground for recognition is nonexistent or obvious on the record, Party A’s evidence No. 18, Party B’s evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance is merely a fact that the indication on the registry is made to the extent that the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not bring about a change in the right. Thus, the change in indication is identical to that of the registered titleholder.