1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. All of the claims of the plaintiff added in the trial shall be dismissed.

3...

1. As to the claim for the cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon of this case (as to the claim(e)

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant land was sold to the Daejeon District Court for the compulsory auction procedure for Hongsung Branch Co., Ltd., and thereafter acquired its ownership, and thereafter requested the registration of cancellation of the instant chonsegwon to the 5th auction at the above court. However, the above court did not implement the procedure of entrustment of cancellation on the ground that the instant chonsegwon was the right to be acquired by the Plaintiff. Since the instant chonsegwon was a right not to be acquired by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure of entrustment of cancellation

B. The Defendant’s objection to the Defendant’s main defense is an unlawful defense that the Plaintiff raised without resorting to the procedure of objection against the disposition by a junior administrative officer, etc. under Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, in the real estate compulsory auction procedure, the Defendant may raise an objection against the disposition by a junior administrative officer, etc. by applying Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis to the case where a junior administrative officer, etc. refuses to request the cancellation of the entry as to the burden of real estate not taken over by the purchaser pursuant to Article 144(1)2 of the Civil Execution Act, and the buyer may raise an objection against the disposition by a junior administrative officer, etc., and against the rejection of the objection, a complaint may be filed pursuant to an ordinary order by applying mutatis mutandis Article 439 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that “when an objection is raised against the ruling or order dismissing the application for the litigation procedure, the Plaintiff’s objection against the above disposition by a junior administrative officer, etc. (see Supreme Court Order 2009Da90, May 6, 2013).

As to this, the plaintiff does not have a legitimate disposition such as a junior administrative officer.