1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 against the Defendants is revoked, and that part is accordingly.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) 2. A; (b) 5. B; and (c) 13. C; and (b) 10. following the 10th 13th 10th 1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) 2. B; (b) 2. B; and (c) 3.C.; and (b) 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited by the main sentence.

2. The addition.

A person shall be appointed.

2. The Defendants’ assertion as to the defense prior to the merits of the instant lawsuit is that there is no legal interest to seek implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the registration of seizure, and that there is no legal interest to seek implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the registration of seizure.

Where a building is destroyed or lost, the registration form for the destroyed building shall be in the name to be closed, and the registration entered in the closed register shall be effective as the current registration.

Therefore, there are circumstances in which seizure of the building was completed and its seizure was cancelled unlawfully.

Even if the attachment authority does not have the interest in seeking implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of cancellation.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da24810, Jun. 10, 1994; 80Da223, Oct. 27, 1980; 20Da223, Oct. 27, 1980). According to the overall purport of each entry and pleading with evidence Nos. 1, 1, 1, and 1, the instant building of three floors above ground is destroyed and lost on August 4, 2017.

9. It is recognized that the registry has been closed, and that a building on the first and tenth basements above the ground level has been newly constructed on the same land (Seoul Western-gu L, Seoul, and one parcel) and registration of preservation of ownership has been completed on April 11, 2018.

According to this, the registration of seizure of this case is null and void because it is against the destroyed building. Of the lawsuit of this case, the claim for the building of this case is seeking the implementation of the procedure for recovery of cancellation against the already closed registration itself due to the destruction of the building, and there is no benefit of lawsuit.