1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of 1 to 3 items in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

A change in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows:

2. Ex officio of the claim for nullification of the decision to permit the sale of this case, the lawsuit for confirmation is allowed in cases where, in principle, legal interests or needs to be immediately confirmed as to the existence of current rights or legal relations, and where the legal uncertainty existing in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status is an effective and appropriate method to fundamentally solve the legal uncertainty.

However, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the decision to permit sale of this case is only ① to seek confirmation of the existence of past rights or legal relations, ② to seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed in the future against the defendant as the plaintiff asserts that the ownership of each real estate of this case still exists, as the decision to permit sale of this case is null and void, is an effective and appropriate method to resolve the dispute, and thereby, is sufficient. In this case, the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of each real estate of this case separately against the defendant, and there is no need to seek confirmation of invalidity of the decision to permit sale of this case.

[See Supreme Court Decision 81Da294 delivered on February 9, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da15902 delivered on April 24, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da15902 delivered on April 24, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da15919 delivered on January 18, 2008, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Na16747 delivered on January 18, 2008, and 2007Na16754 delivered on a counterclaim). Accordingly, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3.B of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

subsection (1) shall be amended as follows:

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is presented.