The plaintiff's claim seeking the expression of consent to the registration of cancellation on the premise that the preceding preservation registration is null and void is without merit.

Even if there is a somewhat different difference between the indication on the registration and the actual building with respect to the construction time of the building, structure, size, lot number, etc. of each part of the building, if it can be recognized that there is a identity or similarity under the social concept, such registration shall be valid as a registration with respect to the building concerned.

2012 Ghana 223611 Registration of cancellation of registration of initial ownership, etc.

changedO

5 other than the Republic of Korea

April 3, 2014

May 15, 2014

1. On July 11, 2011, Defendant ChoA, ParkB, ParkCC, and YoonD shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, which was completed due to the commission of registration of provisional attachment on July 11, 201, with respect to each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the OO bank, Korea, the Defendant (Appointed Party) ChoE, the Appointer Park F, GangwonG, and Yellow H is dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant ChoA, ParkB, ParkCC, and leD is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant OO bank, the Republic of Korea, the Defendant (Appointed Party), ChoE, the Appointer Park F, the GangwonG, and sulfurH are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The order of Paragraph 1 of this Article and the defendant OOO Bank, Korea, the defendant (Appointed Party), ES, the Appointed Gangnam HH expressed their respective acceptances on the registration cancellation under Paragraph 1 of this Article.

1. Basic facts

A. Progress in the construction of the instant multi-household house

1) Around September 2008, Defendant Cho Jae-A, ParkB, ParkCC, and leD (hereinafter “Defendant Cho Jae-A”) obtained permission to build three multi-households on the ground of the same Ri 144-1 and 144-2 multi-households (hereinafter “the instant multi-households”) from the Department of Song-J in the name of Nonparty J and Joint with the Department of Song-J on the basis of the XX military. (The SongJ was excluded from the owner of the building around February 2010)

2) From June 24, 2010 to June 24, 2010, six parcels of land in relation to the instant multi-household building site were added to the said parcels of land (However, there was no change in building structure).

3) Meanwhile, on June 28, 2011, Nonparty Y Co., Ltd. reported that the owner of the instant multi-household housing was changed from Defendant ChoA and three others to Y public, and the said report was accepted on July 14, 2011.

(b) Registration for prior preservation;

1) On July 7, 2011, the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Appointed Party”) rendered E, Selection F, GangwonG, and HaH (hereinafter referred to as the “Selection Party EE, etc.”) a loan of KRW 375 million to Defendant Cho Jae-A and three other parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Selection Party E, etc.”) as the preserved right, and received the Defendant’s voluntary indication of the provisional attachment No. 101, 102, 201, 202, 301, 302, 301, 102, 302, 302, 101, 201, 202, 201, 202, 201, 202, 201, 202, 301, 301, 301, 302, 301, 302, 302, 302, or 302.

2) Before citing the above provisional attachment decision, the above court ordered an architect KimZ to investigate the current status of multi-household housing in this case in order to commission the registration of provisional attachment entry.

3) In investigating the instant multi-household housing on June 14, 201, and preparing a report on the current status survey thereof (hereinafter referred to as the “report on the current status survey”) and evidence No. 2, Kim Z indicated the building “A” on the outer wall of the building as “Dong Dong” and indicated the remainder of the building as “Dong Dong” (see Articles 27, 28 of the following report on the drawings and the previous status survey), “Dong Dong” in the instant multi-household housing was suspended after completion of the construction work, and “Dong Dong” and “Dong Dong” were left alone, and if it is later left, it would be likely that administrative treatment problems will arise in the future, or if it is divided into “Dong Dong or Dong building site” into 20 building site and building site, 20 building area and building area can be separated from Dong or Dong building site, 1, 20 building area and building area, 1, 20 building area and building area as the result of the investigation, 1, 20 building area and building area of Dong or Dong site.

4) Meanwhile, in the case of the placement of each aggregate building, the Kim Z has been placed over the land of XX 144-2, 144-16, and the "Dadong" has been placed on the land of XX 144-2, and the "Dadong and Dong Dong", which is the object of the investigation, as a single complex, is the same for the reason that the lot number cannot be separately displayed since it is placed on the land of XX 144-2, 144-16, which was prepared as the lot number of the building (see the report on the survey on the status of prior operation, No. 4, 6).

5) In addition to the report on the investigation of the preceding status, the above court entrusted the registration of provisional attachment attachment in accordance with the above provisional attachment order regarding the movement of the building among the multi-households of this case and the non-Dong building (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the buildings of this case"). On July 11, 2011, based on the report on the previous investigation of the current status, the registry official in charge entrusted the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of preliminary attachment preservation") on the whole section of each of the buildings of this case to Defendant ChoA et al. and three other, and registered provisional attachment attachment registration in the name of the designated party ChoE et al.

(c) Registration for follow-up preservation;

(1) On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional seizure against real estate regarding the following subparagraphs 101, 102, 201, 202, 202, 301, 302, and 101, 'Non-Dong' among multi-household houses in this case as the right to preserve the claim amounting to KRW 560,000,000,000 as the preserved right.

2) Before citing the above provisional attachment decision, the above court again ordered the Architect Kim Z to investigate the current status of multi-household housing of this case in order to commission the registration of provisional attachment entry.

3) In examining the present multi-household housing around February 2012 and preparing a report on the current status survey on it (hereinafter referred to as the "report on the current status survey on it"), unlike the indication in the preceding report on the current status survey, Kim Z indicated on the outer wall of the building as "Na Dong" and the building on which "non-Dong" is marked as "Dong Dong" and indicated on the outer wall of the building as "Dong Dong" (see Articles 44 and 45 of the following report on the current status survey on drawings and the follow-up activities), "Dadong" among the present multi-household housing, was interrupted in the course of shipbuilding work after the completion of the structural construction work; "Dong and Dong Dong" were constructed as a complex; "Dong building" and "Dong" were constructed as a building on the outer wall of the building; 14-14-14-14-4-14-4-4-4-14-4-4-4-4-4-14-4-4-4-4-4-14--4-4--4-4-14--4-4--4-14-dong building site.

4) The above court entrusted the registration of the entry of provisional seizure in accordance with the above provisional seizure decision as to each of the buildings of this case, accompanied by a report on the investigation of the status quo, etc., and on February 20, 2012, the registry official in charge entrusted the registration of the entry of provisional seizure in accordance with the above provisional seizure decision as to each of the buildings of this case, with the indication of the same object as the registration of the post-registration of the preservation of provisional seizure in the attached Form No. 201

(d) Registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, etc. based on the registration for preceding preservation;

On the other hand, on July 21, 201, (1) the registration of prior preservation is based on the registration of prior preservation, (2) the registration of establishment of the neighboring establishment of the OOO district court No. 3220, (2) the registration of provisional injunction No. 14896, Apr. 10, 2012, (3) the registration of establishment of the neighboring establishment of the office No. 23388, Jun. 1, 201, (201; (2) the registration of establishment of the office No. 21784, 21785, 21789, 3131, 31954, and 32380, respectively, of the receipt of the registration office of the defendant Republic of Korea, the disposition office of the Republic of Korea, the disposition office of the Republic of Korea, and the registration of seizure was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 32, 33 (including partial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Prior preservation registration is made with the indication of the location of the building at XX 144-2.16 of 144-16. This corresponds to the registration that is not recognized as identical or similar to the real relation due to a serious error or error in the indication of the third design modification permit, which is considerably different from that of x 144-1 and 7 parcels in the third design modification permit.

B. YABE newly constructed each of the buildings of this case at its own expense and effort to acquire ownership in original condition, and on June 28, 201, the owner of each of the buildings of this case changed from Defendant ChoA to YA on June 28, 2011, before the registration for prior preservation was completed, and the registration for prior preservation completed in the name of Defendant ChoAA and 3, constitutes registration for invalidation of cause caused by an unentitled person.

C. Therefore, prior preservation registration is required to be cancelled. The Plaintiff, as a creditor of promissory notes amounting to KRW 775 million against the original Y public, who acquired the ownership of each of the buildings of this case, sought the cancellation of the prior preservation registration against Defendant ChoA and three other parties, on behalf of the insolvent YA in subrogation of the public YA, for the cancellation of the prior preservation registration, Defendant OO bank, Korea, and the designated parties ChoE.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ChoA and three other parties

As to each of the facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of claim, the said Defendants are deemed to have led to the confession of such facts in accordance with Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of prior preservation registration completed in the names of the Defendants as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

4. Determination as to the claim against the Republic of Korea of the OOO bank, the Appointed Party ChoE

A. Whether an error or error in the indication of the preceding preservation registration is invalid due to a serious error or error

(1) Whether the preservation registration of a building has the effect of disclosing a certain building is determined based on whether it can recognize the identity of the real building in question with the indication of that registration in light of the general social concept. If it is recognized that there is a little difference between the indication on that registration and the actual building about the time of the construction of the building, the structure of each part of the building, the horizontal number, the parcel number of the location, etc., even though there is a little difference between the indication on that registration and the actual building, such registration shall be deemed to be valid as a registration of the building

(2) When the instant three multi-households are based on the revised design on June 24, 2010, the fact that the instant three sites for multi-household houses contain eight parcels of the XX 144-1, 144-2, 144-15, 144-16, 144-17, 144-18, 144-20, 144-20, and 144-21 are as seen earlier.

However, in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that the movement to the outer wall marking criteria for the multi-household housing of this case is on the land of XX 144-2, and that non-Dong is on the land of 144-16 2, and that part of the outer wall of non-Dong building is on the land of 144-15, while the whole area of the building of this case is small, there is no other building than the one where the construction was interrupted among the apartment houses of this case, adjacent to each of the above buildings, and there is no other building than the above facts. On the other hand, each of the buildings of this case is on the independent real estate of this case, and it is not on the above multi-household housing of this case, and since the building of this case is not on the above multi-household housing of this case, the number of each of the buildings of this case 4, including the above multi-household housing of this case, the building number of 1-4, which is not necessary.

(b) Whether Y public buildings of this case were originally acquired;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 17 evidence Nos. 26, as a contractor, YA entered into a contract for construction for the construction of each building of this case with the contractor's OO integrated construction around November 2008. YA acquired the ownership of land in XX 14-2, 14-16 on November 16, 201, and reported that the owner of each building of this case changed from Defendant ChoA to YA et al. al. 3 to YA on June 28, 2011. However, each of the above facts alone is insufficient to confirm that YA newly constructed each building of this case with its own cost and effort, or that there was an agreement between the contractor to register the ownership of each building of this case under the name of the contractor to register the ownership of each building of this case and that the contractor of each of the public buildings of this case should have completed the construction of each of the building of this case under the name of the contractor(YYA).

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, on the premise that prior preservation registration is null and void, the plaintiff's claim seeking consent to the above Defendants on the registration of cancellation is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ChoA, and the third parties is justified, and the claim against the defendant OO bank, the Republic of Korea, and the designated parties ChoE, etc. shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.