A case in which the indication of a building is recognized as effective as a registration even though it is superior to the actual structure and reputation;

Article 31-1 of the Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-dong 31-1 of the "Yacheon-dong 31", where the defendant, who received the 1, 1, 19, 1, 6, 1, 1, 40, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 33, 1, 1, and 33, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, and 33, 1, 1, from among the above buildings in the above building after the Korean War of June 25, 196, reconstructed, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 47, 47, 1, 2, and 3, 1,000, 1, and 1,000, 1,000 and 1,000,00,00.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (75Gahap286, 846)

The appeal is dismissed.

In the trial of the party, the claim for delivery of real estate recorded in the attached Table 1 against the counterclaim Defendant (Defendant) due to the extension of the claim for the counterclaim is dismissed.

All the costs of appeal and the costs of lawsuit arising from the extension of claim for a counterclaim in the trial shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) fulfilled the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation, as set forth in No. 3800 on May 18, 1970, for the real estate recorded in the Schedule No. 1 attached hereto, to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff).

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

On July 18, 1961, the Plaintiff fulfilled the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation as stipulated in No. 2776 of the registration receipt as to the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 3.

Due to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial court, the plaintiff shall deliver to the defendant the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

1. Determination as to the principal claim;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4-1, 4-1, 4-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-2 (Appraisal Protocol), the defendant's testimony and oral argument that the construction of the building listed in the attached Table No. 4, which was originally state property, was due to the government's disapproval and use of 6.25 units of the above building, and 1,2-3 units of the above building were altered into the old structure and 1,23-1, 3-1, 3-1, and 4-2 (Appraisal Protocol), and the other facts that the defendant had completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the attached Table No. 1,70-1, 8-1, 1, 3000-7 units and 1-1,000-7 units of the building and 1,000-1,000-7 units and 3-1,000-7 units of the building.

Therefore, although the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is somewhat different from the structure and reputation of the building in this case, in light of the facts acknowledged above, it is reasonable to recognize that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the above defendant is valid, and that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the above defendant is null and void as one of two registrations concerning the same building, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration is justified.

2. Determination on the counterclaim;

The defendant asserts that the building recorded in the attached list No. 3 is owned by the plaintiff because the building recorded in the attached list No. 1 is indicated as the building recorded in the attached list No. 3 on the plaintiff's name on the ground of the ground of the 31-1 of Seocheon-si Kimcheon-dong, Kimcheon-si, and that the ownership transfer registration of the plaintiff's title to the building recorded in the attached list No. 3 is invalid registration that is not consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, the plaintiff's claim that the building recorded in the attached list No. 3 is owned by the plaintiff because the building recorded in the attached list No. 1 is indicated as the building recorded in the attached list No. 3 on the register of the plaintiff's name on the ground of the 31-1 of Seocheon-dong, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-dong, the building owned by the plaintiff (the actual building is indicated in the attached list No. 5, and the registration No. 4 on the registration of ownership of the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 1 on the defendant's. 1.

Then, the defendant extended the purport of the counterclaim in the trial of the court and applied for the extradition of the real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 because the plaintiff illegally occupies it. Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim is groundless since the registration of transfer of the defendant's title to the real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 is a double registration about the building owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim claim is groundless.

3. Ultimately, the plaintiff's main claim is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. The judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion, and since the defendant's appeal is unfair, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the defendant's request for delivery of real estate due to the expansion of the defendant's purport of the counterclaim is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment List of Real Estate]

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)