1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 1975, Defendant B newly constructed and sold a commercial apartment of the first and the sixth floor above the ground level D on the Ulsan-gu D ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On November 20, 2014, Defendant C filed a lawsuit against Defendant B seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant subparagraph 701 (No. 2014Gada31003) by asserting that the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant subparagraph 701”) was sold in lots on January 31, 1976.

In the above lawsuit, the decision of recommending reconciliation was made on December 2, 2014 to the effect that Defendant B fulfilled the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant subparagraph 701 on the ground of sale on January 31, 1976 to Defendant C. The decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On January 6, 2015, according to the decision to recommend reconciliation, the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of Defendant B, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Defendant C, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the registrations of this case”) D.

On the other hand, on April 21, 201, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by winning a successful bid at the auction procedure for the instant building 309, etc.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 to 6, witness E's testimony, the result of this court's on-site inspection, each fact inquiry into the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, the result of this court's inquiry into the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the cancellation, etc. of each of the registrations of this case by asserting that the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant building No. 309, etc. and the instant building No. 701, who was the owner of the instant building, was the co-ownership part of the instant building, Defendant C did not have standing to seek cancellation of each of the registrations of this case since the Plaintiff was not an owner of the instant building nor an interested party.

In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is the plaintiff's own claim.