1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not request the cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis, on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis, which was completed by the head of Daejeon District Court No. 11582 on July 28, 1992 (hereinafter “the right to lease on a deposit basis”) was the right to be acquired by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis.

2. A lawsuit seeking ex officio the cancellation of registration against a person who is not a registered titleholder of the right of lease on a deposit basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da39225, Feb. 25, 1994) is an unlawful lawsuit against a person who is not a registered titleholder of the right of lease on a deposit basis, and thus, is a lawsuit against a person who is not a registered titleholder of the right of lease on a deposit basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da3925, Feb. 25, 1994). Thus, the lawsuit in this case is a lawsuit against

[Plaintiffs asserted that a junior administrative officer, etc. refuses the request for cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2013Ma325, May 6, 2013) although the instant right to lease on a deposit basis was not taken over to the buyer, and raised an objection to the disposition such as a junior administrative officer, etc. and raised an objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2013Ma325, May 6, 2013).