The judgment below

Of them, the part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the case of a preliminary consolidation of claims as to the grounds of appeal on the claim for confirmation of ownership, it shall be tried in accordance with the order of the Plaintiff’s attachment, and in the case of rejection of the primary claim, it shall be tried in accordance with

In addition, since the main claim and the conjunctive claim are indivisiblely combined to one litigation procedure, if no judgment is made on the conjunctive claim while rejecting the main claim, the conjunctive claim for which judgment is omitted shall also be transferred to the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da22253, Nov. 16, 2000). According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the plaintiff requested the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescription period for the acquisition of the ownership as to the real estate in the first instance, and the preliminary claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real name, but the first instance court dismissed all the main and conjunctive claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed from the third date for pleading of the court below on February 7, 2012 by the statement of the "written request for ownership transfer registration based on the ownership transfer registration due to the main claim and the conjunctive claim for ownership transfer registration due to the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for the confirmation as the conjunctive claim before the amendment and the first instance claim are dismissed.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the instant real estate.