1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Article 2-B of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the reasons for the trial concerning this case.

In addition to the following cases, the entry in the paragraph is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and such entry is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the other hand, the registration of the merger of this case is unlawful in violation of Article 90-3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201; hereinafter the same). Accordingly, the closure of the register of land 481-6 is also illegal. However, there is no legal provision regarding the cancellation or withdrawal of a combination of lots on the register for the purpose of resolving such unlawful state and the procedures for returning it to the register accordingly, it is not possible to seek the restoration of the registration of the merger of this case.

On the other hand, the registration is presumed to be a legitimate right holder if the registration is cancelled without any reason because the requirements for the validity of the real right are not the requirement of existence, and the validity of the real right is not affected if the registration is cancelled without any reason, and even before the completion of the registration for recovery is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997). Since the registration recorded in the closed register is not transferred to a new registration without any reason, it cannot be viewed differently even if the registration is not entered in the closed register (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997), the new register is transferred to a new registration register, so that the change of the right and its contents can be entirely publicly notified only after combining with

A) The registration right stated in the closed register is still valid, where the contents of the closed register and the new register are continuous.

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to collateral security has not been registered as a new register.