1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph 2 below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Act on Provisional Registration Security, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Registration Security Act") shall be amended by the Act on Provisional Registration Security, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisional Registration Security Act").

(b) The provisional registration of the Defendant at the 9th 16th 16th e.g., “the provisional registration of the Defendant” was amended to “the principal registration based on each of the instant provisional registrations by the Defendant”

2. Determination on addition

A. The plaintiff is a provisional registration of this case, and since the defendant completed the principal registration on the basis of each of the provisional registrations of this case without undergoing the liquidation procedure under the Provisional Registration Security Act, this registration based on each of the provisional registrations of this case is null and void in violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Act, and the defendant did not acquire each of the sectional ownership of the buildings of this case. Thus, the defendant did not acquire the sectional ownership of the building of this case Nos. 202 and 303. Thus, without any legal ground, he did not acquire the right to use the site for the ownership of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant obtained the profits equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the part corresponding to the share of the site necessary for the ownership of the building of this case among the land of this case from the land of this case. Accordingly, the defendant suffered damages equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the amount equivalent to the ownership of the building of this case to the plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment.

As to this, the defendant succeeded to the status of the defendant's wife andO, the defendant purchased each of the buildings of this case Nos. 202 and 303, and paid in full.