1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant with respect to both Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D (hereinafter “instant land No. 1”), two-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”), three-story housing (hereinafter “instant housing”), and three-party 73.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”).

B. The land Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant case was combined on August 12, 1986, and its land cadastre was changed to the land cadastre of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D & 289.8 square meters, but the registration of transfer of ownership was completed with respect to the land No. 1 and housing in the Plaintiff’s name on September 13, 1994 on the ground of successful bid on April 29, 1994 when the registration of combination of lots was not completed in the register.

On the other hand, on September 13, 1994, the owner registered as the plaintiff on the land cadastre of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D major 289.8 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the land No. 2 was an access road, which is part of the land No. 1, which is the object of auction by combining the land of this case, and the ownership of the Plaintiff is attributed to the Plaintiff according to the decision of permission for sale in the auction procedure and payment of the proceeds therefrom, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the Defendant as to the land No. 2.2) Furthermore, since the Plaintiff occupied the land of this case for not less than 20 years from the commencement of possession of the land of this case on September 14, 1994

B. The Plaintiff’s above assertion 1 is a valid registration of the registration of the land No. 1 in this case following the merger of each land in this case, and the registration of the land No. 2 in this case is not a valid registration.

However, Article 38 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act is a procedure for land annexation under the Act on the Establishment, Management, etc. of Spatial Data.