1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s comprehensive construction of Matin Co., Ltd. is revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation by the court of first instance is to change the attachment of the judgment of first instance to the attachment of this judgment, and to dismiss the judgment of first instance as follows. In addition to adding the judgment of the plaintiff’s assertion to paragraph (2) below, the reasoning of the judgment of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

Part 15 of Part 3, "Plaintiff E", and part of Part 6, "2, a claim for the comprehensive construction of Defendant Ma," and part of the last action (2, the part of the claim for the comprehensive construction of Defendant Matin), as follows, are amended to see whether the part of the claim for the comprehensive construction of Defendant Ma, Co.,, Ltd. among the lawsuit in this case, is legitimate (ex officio determination) (ex officio determination)

A. Since the registration of ownership transfer completed in Defendant C and D with respect to the land of this case claimed by the Plaintiff is null and void, the construction of Mau General Construction Co., Ltd., a person holding the provisional attachment registration of this case, is obligated to express his/her consent with respect to the cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration as a third party with a interest

B. Article 57(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that “Where a person applies for a cancellation of registration and there is a third party who has an interest in the cancellation thereof, consent shall be required from the third party.” The registration right holder under this context, which is likely to cause damage by making a cancellation registration of a third party’s column with an interest in the registration, is a person who is formally recognized by entry in the registry, and is likely to cause damage.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da43753, Apr. 27, 2007). Therefore, a person, other than a registered titleholder, is obvious that he/she does not fall under a third party having an interest in registration with respect to cancellation of registration, and there is no need to obtain consent from a person other than a registered titleholder for cancellation of registration.