Plaintiff (Law Firm Solar, Attorneys Song-si et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff (Law Firm Solar, Attorney Song-si, Counsel for the intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 17, 2014

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2012Kadan2380 Decided March 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. According to the participation by succession at the trial court, the defendant shall be the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

(a) remove a 16m2 inboard (A) scale on the ground of 16m2 square meters in order to connect the attached appraisal map No. 25,26,30,31,25 among the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached list of real estate, and deliver the above land;

(b) comply with the procedures for filing an application for cancellation of the parcel number ( Address 1 omitted) recorded in the building ledger for each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table No. 1 and 2 of the real estate list kept in Thaik.

3. The costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 (a) of this Article may be provisionally executed;

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff: The defendant implements the procedure for filing an application for cancellation (e.g., cancellation) of the lot number recorded in the building ledger of each real estate listed in the attached Form No. 1, 26, 30, 31, and 25 of the real estate list in the attached Form No. 3 among the real estate listed in the attached Form No. 3 of the real estate list, to the plaintiff, and removes the axis and squad on the ground of the portion of 16 square meters in the attached Form No. 25, 26, 30, 31, and 25. The above land is delivered to the plaintiff.

The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff: It is as set forth in paragraph (2).

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall implement the procedure for filing an application with the plaintiff for cancellation (e.g. address 1 omitted) and (e. address 2 omitted) lot numbers recorded in the building ledger of each real estate listed in the attached Table 1 and 2 of the real estate list kept at the time of Thai.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 1986, Taecheon Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd. newly constructed each of the buildings listed in [Attachment 1] List 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”), and used each of the buildings of this case (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) and extended the amusement room of each of the buildings of this case on March 11, 1987 with the approval of land use from the non-party 4, who is the right holder of the adjacent land (hereinafter “the land of this case”). On August 25, 1987, the land of this case was registered as an additional lot number in the building ledger of each of the buildings of this case.

B. On May 27, 199, Nonparty 1 purchased the instant land from Nonparty 4 at the time, filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 2, who is the owner of each of the instant building, to remove the instant land’s ground recreation room (location 1 omitted) and deliver the part of the instant land (hereinafter “instant amusement room”) and subsequently removed the instant amusement room on or around March 30, 200 after receiving a favorable judgment on July 5, 200. Accordingly, the part of the instant entertainment room, which was extended as above, was revoked from the building ledger of each of the instant buildings, and on the building ledger and the certified copy of the register of each of the instant buildings, the parcel number of each of the instant land is currently indicated as the seat of each of the instant buildings.

C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant land on April 30, 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 3, 2002, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant land on December 19, 2003.

D. On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for correction of the indication of the building ledger to the effect that the parcel number of the instant land may be deleted from the parcel number of each building of this case with the Taecheon City Mayor. However, pursuant to Articles 18, 20, and 21 of the Rules on the entry, Management, etc. of the Building Register, the application for correction of the indication of the “Building” was filed with the owner of the building along with relevant documents prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, the Plaintiff, who is not the owner of the instant building, cannot file an application for correction of the indication of the relevant building, is unable to file an application for correction of the indication of the building. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who

E. Accordingly, on November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the return of the application for correction of indication on the building ledger with the Chuncheon District Court 2010Guhap939, the Plaintiff rendered a dismissal judgment on the ground that “The Plaintiff, who is a site owner, cannot be deemed to have the right under the relevant laws or cooking applying for the change of the lot number of the instant building, and thus the above rejection disposition cannot be deemed to constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.” The Plaintiff appealed to Seoul High Court 2010Nu929, which was then dismissed on June 29, 2011, but the appeal filed with the Supreme Court 201Du1612 was dismissed on December 12, 2013. The Plaintiff also filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and Tae Tae-si District Court 201Guhap2178, but was dismissed on April 6, 2012.

(f)The relevant laws and regulations are as follows:

Article 6 (Relation between Building Sites and Building Registers) of the Regulations on the Entry, Management, etc. of Building Registers included in the main text (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules on Building Registers"), where there exists existing existing building registers on the same site: Provided, That this shall not apply to extension under subparagraph 1 of Article 2: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases of extension under Article 2 (Change of Number of Building Registers) (1) When the owner of a building intends to change matters concerning the lot number among the entries in the building register, he/she shall file an application for change of building lot numbers in attached Form 17 with the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, along with the following documents, and the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall confirm it and change the lot number. 1. or 2. The current survey results map (limited to cases where a cadastral survey is conducted pursuant to Article 23 (1) of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records, which may be substituted with a boundary restoration road).

G. On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

H. Meanwhile, on the ground of the part (A) on which the appraisal was successively connected to each point of (25,26,30, 31, and 25 indicated in the attached Table 25, 26, 30, 31, and 25 among the land (such as the real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table of Real Estate List) owned by the Plaintiff Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, there is a stable and a chemical building

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers), the result of the on-site inspection conducted by the court of the first instance, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by non-party Nos. 3 of the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit for the execution of the procedure for the application for the cancellation of parcel number in the building ledger of this case is not a legal dispute, but a dispute over the existence of a simple fact is the subject matter of a lawsuit.

According to the fact finding, the above fact finding and the fact finding of the party member's Taek market, if the building owner and the site owner's lot number located in the building ledger are different from the building owner's application, the new building ledger cannot be prepared before cancelling or closing the building ledger. Thus, if the existing building ledger exists in the same site under Article 6 of the Building Register Rules, the new building ledger cannot be constructed in the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's assertion that they are the site owner's lot number located in the building ledger are the claim for exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the land, and if the defendant who is the owner of each building of this case did not file an application for change of lot number in the building ledger, there is a benefit to file a lawsuit against the defendant seeking implementation of the relevant procedure for application against the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of the above principal safety is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Judgment on the plaintiff's appeal

(1) In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the implementation of the procedure for filing an application for cancelling the parcel number of a building register, the removal of a stable and chemical team, and the delivery of land. The first instance court dismissed the lawsuit among them, and accepted all the remaining claims. The Plaintiff’s appeal was lodged only against this, and thus, the subject of the judgment by the court on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim is limited to the claim for cancelling the parcel number of a building register.

(2) On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on the same day. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who is not the Plaintiff, has no right to seek the exclusion of disturbance based on the ownership of the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the revocation of the Plaintiff’s building ledger is without merit. However, in the instant case where only the Plaintiff appealed, the first instance judgment cannot be changed disadvantageous to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

B. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

(1) Parts of removal of stables and flowers and requests for delivery of land

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the axis and squad on the ground of 16 square meters in part on the ship (A) which connects the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor with attached appraisal No. 25,26,30,31,25 in sequence among the real estate listed in attached Table No. 3 of the real estate list of attached Table No. 3 and deliver the land to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor.

(2) Part on the request for cancellation of the building ledger

The entertainment room of this case, which was extended to the land of this case, was removed on March 30, 201. Nevertheless, the building ledger of each building of this case and the certified copy of the registry of this case contain the parcel number of each building of this case as the location of each building of this case. As such, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for filing an application for cancellation of the parcel number of each land of this case, which is recorded in the building ledger of each building of this case, kept in the building ledger of this case as the owner of each building of this case, to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor seeking

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal against the claim for cancellation of the building ledger is dismissed on the grounds as seen above, and the plaintiff's claim following the succession participation in the trial court is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-sub (Presiding Judge)