1. As to the Plaintiff, as to the buildings listed in the attached list:

A. The defendant B is the Cheongju District Court in the identification number D registry.

1. Fact-finding;

A. On January 21, 1996, the registration of ownership preservation (registration of ownership preservation) was completed in the name of E with respect to the buildings listed in the attached list (hereinafter in this case) and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant B on June 13, 1974.

The plaintiff was awarded the building of this case on July 28, 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 19, 200.

B. However, on June 26, 1989, upon the commission of the registration of provisional seizure by the creditor of the defendant B upon the application of provisional seizure, the registration of preservation of ownership (registration of preservation of ownership) was completed in the name of the defendant B in the new register (the identification number D) concerning the building of this case

C. On October 29, 1998, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed in the name of Defendant C on November 3, 1998, the provisional registration was completed in the name of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund on January 3, 1998, the provisional registration was completed in the name of the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (the change to the name of the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation) on January 25, 1999, and the provisional registration was completed in the name of the Chungcheongbuk Bank (the merger with the Defendant New Bank Co., Ltd.) on February 24, 199

[Grounds : Facts without dispute, described in Gap evidence 1-4 (including paper numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings]

2. Where a registration of initial ownership has been made in duplicate because the registered titleholder was different with respect to the same real estate, the registration of initial ownership shall be deemed null and void under the Registration of Real Estate Act, which adopts the first real estate site principle, unless the first registration of initial ownership becomes null and void.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961 delivered on November 27, 1990). Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the preceding registration of preservation of the building in this case was null and void. Thus, the subsequent registration of preservation of the building in this case is null and void as a double registration.

Thus, Defendant B has a duty to cancel the registration of preservation after the invalidation, and the provisional registration, provisional seizure, is based on the registration of preservation after the invalidation.