beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On February 4, 1998, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the Defendant for KRW 77,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and resides in it until now (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). As such, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation as the owner of the said building against the Defendant.
B. The conjunctive Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the Defendant on February 4, 1998, and accordingly, sought against the Defendant the implementation of the procedure for transfer registration of ownership based on the sale of the said building.
2. If ex officio as to the legitimacy of the primary claim part of the lawsuit in this case, the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights in health, in the lawsuit of confirmation, has concerns over the existence of the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and the judgment of confirmation is rendered when it is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. Therefore, the building in this case seems not to have been prepared as an unregistered building without permission, and the plaintiff has failed to submit the building register of the building in this case until the date of closing argument in the trial.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to ascertain whether the above building is an aggregate building under Article 1 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and is subject to sectional ownership, and the ownership confirmation judgment against the title holder of building or the owner of building with respect to the building for which the building register has not been prepared does not constitute a "final judgment" under Article 65 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Regulations No. 1483) (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 1483), and even though the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Defendant based on the sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff, the transferee of the building