1. Defendant D shall assist the Busan District Court with respect to each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list to Plaintiff B.

1. Determination as to Defendant D’s main defense

A. With respect to the claim of this case seeking the provisional registration as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article and the cancellation of the principal registration based thereon, Defendant D merely has the right to claim the ownership transfer registration against E with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and since the above real estate is not the owner of each of the above real estate, the above provisional registration and the right to claim the cancellation of the principal registration based thereon against the Defendant, who is the owner of each of the above real estate,

B. In a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing as a party is nominal upon the plaintiff's own request, and such determination is added to the judgment as to the propriety of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da11848, Jun. 12, 1992). In a case where a principal registration based on an invalid provisional registration is completed, and a registrar ex officio cancels the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of a third party after the provisional registration, the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer is also null and void, and the above third party is a claim for removal of interference based on ownership, regardless of whether the above cancellation of ownership transfer registration is recovered, and the provisional registration and the principal registration are directly filed against the person who

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da29097 delivered on October 24, 1997). C.

In this case, even if the ownership transfer registration of Plaintiff B was cancelled ex officio due to the above provisional registration listed in Section 1 of the Order of Defendant D, and the principal registration based thereon becomes null and void, regardless of whether or not the cancellation registration of the above ownership transfer registration was restored, Plaintiff B still can claim against Defendant D for the above provisional registration and cancellation registration as the lawsuit of this case by exercising the right to claim a removal of disturbance based on ownership as the owner, regardless of whether or not the above cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration was restored. Thus, Defendant D’s above principal safety defense disputing Plaintiff B’s standing is groundless

Defendant D is against E.