1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion while running the business of constructing buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land outside Sejong Special Self-Governing City E and outside seven parcels. After entering into a credit transaction agreement with Asan Mutual Savings Bank, the Defendant fulfilled obligations under the said credit transaction agreement and entered into a contract with Asan Mutual Savings Bank to acquire all rights to the said business, such as the said credit transaction agreement and the waiver of the execution right. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the change of the name of the owner of the instant building.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit on the determination of the legality of the instant lawsuit.

According to Gap evidence No. 17, the fact that the name of the owner of the building in this case was changed from November 26, 2015 to the plaintiff can be acknowledged. According to the above facts, the plaintiff does not need to seek implementation of the procedure for change of the name of the owner of the building in this case. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no legal interest.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is inappropriate and thus, it is so unfair that the decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with the order of the court of first instance, but it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 105, 98, and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of total costs of lawsuit.