1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The building management ledger on the ground buildings with the area of 5,164 square meters prior to C before the subdivision (hereinafter “instant land before the subdivision”) was drafted around September 25, 1989, stating that the building management ledger on the ground buildings with the area of 5,164 square meters prior to C before the subdivision was additionally recorded on around November 22, 1983, around 1960, the area of 48.60 square meters in a wooden juju, the area of sapproke roof housing, the area of 7.14 square meters in a wooden sapproke roof warehouse, and the area of 5,164 square meters in a wooden juju, the area of which was additionally entered on September 25, 1989, the area of which was 13.62 square meters between 5,000 square meters and 13.62 square meters between 5,000 square meters and 166,000 square meters in a building.

B. After that, on April 17, 191, the land prior to the instant partition was divided into three hundred and seventy-eight square meters (the land category was changed to a building site on May 13, 1991; hereinafter “instant land”) and four thousand and seventy-eight6 square meters prior to Jeju. The building register on the instant land is indicated as having the owner as B and one story block housing 13.62 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 7-1 to 4, and evidence 14-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that each building completed around 1989 on the ground before the instant partition was destroyed, and again constructed a new building on around 1991. On November 21, 2011, the Defendant entered each building, other than a newly built building at the time of creation of the building register on the ground of the instant land, and did not cancel it up to now.

As a result, B, which is recorded as the owner in the building ledger, has suffered damages such as losing the Plaintiff by filing a building delivery lawsuit against the Plaintiff. Thus, the omission that the Defendant did not take measures to cancel the actual status of the building ledger is unlawful.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense.