1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim of this case as shown in the attached Form.

Therefore, we examine whether the claim for the performance of the registration procedure for destruction of the building in this case is permitted under the current Registration Act.

In cases where a building is destroyed or lost, the owner of the site of the building shall, pursuant to Article 43(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, apply for the registration of destruction by subrogation of the registered titleholder of the ownership of the building, and in cases where a registration of destruction is made with respect to a non-existent building, the owner of the site of the building may complete the registration of destruction even without joint application or consent of the owner of the building by filing an application for the registration of destruction by the above method pursuant to Articles 44(2) and 43(2) of the same Act. As such, the Plaintiff, the site owner of the building stated in the purport of the claim, as stipulated in each of the above provisions, shall make the registration of destruction of the building

Nevertheless, this lawsuit is not a method of registration of destruction as stipulated in the current Registration of Real Estate Act, but rather a method of registration of destruction as stipulated in the current Registration of Real Estate Act, against the defendant, who is a registered titleholder of ownership of a building stated in the purport of the claim, for the performance of registration of destruction due to

(The Supreme Court Decision 73Da396 Decided July 24, 1973, which held that a site owner may seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of destruction against the current registered titleholder of the destroyed building, is not valid under the amended Registration Act of December 14, 1991, since the Registration of Real Estate Act was amended by Act No. 4422 on December 14, 1991. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is still unreasonable under the amended Registration Act of Real Estate.