The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, on March 6, 2009, newly constructed a new collective housing of 19 households size (hereinafter “new NNL”) on the site after 18 owners of each household unit of the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap311 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) removed the former NNL on the 18th unit of the Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court, including the Plaintiffs and K, and on the 19th unit of the land, the Defendant’s claim against K for the registration of the establishment of the neighboring collective housing against K as the preserved right to the claim against K for the registration of the establishment of the neighboring collective housing against the Defendant on March 6, 2009.

A. Upon receipt of a decision to prohibit the provisional disposal of real estate, the registration of ownership preservation under the name of K was completed on March 10, 209 with the commission of registration in accordance with the provisional disposal order, and the registration of provisional disposal of real estate was completed on March 701, 209. The defendant recognized that the auction procedure was commenced by filing an application for the auction of real estate on the basis of the above joint collateral security after the registration of joint collateral security with the debtor as to September 1, 2009 was completed on September 1, 2009. Since the plaintiffs, etc. newly constructed new NB lending, 18 households were the sole ownership of the plaintiffs, etc. as to the remaining 701 households, and the remaining 701 households were co-ownership of the plaintiffs, etc., and the plaintiffs' claim for the provisional disposal order under the above provisional disposal order and the provisional disposal order under the above joint collateral security, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs et al. lost against the plaintiff 701 and the remaining 7047.7.