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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below as to whether the provisional registration security right of M was legitimately transferred to the Defendants, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and concluded that the supplementary registration of this case was completed on the ground of a contract transfer as of May 1, 2004, and that the plaintiff, the defendants, and M agreed to transfer the status of M in the contract between the plaintiff,

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that M transferred the secured debt of the provisional registration of this case to the Defendants and notified the Plaintiff or obtained consent from the Plaintiff that M met requirements for setting up against the Plaintiff. Thus, the additional registration of this case is null and void unless the additional registration of this case is null and void, and the registration of ownership transfer of this case, which was completed based on the invalid additional registration, is null and void unless there are special circumstances. In addition, even though the provisional registration of this case was a provisional registration of this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants had completed liquidation procedures in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Provisional Registration Security Act (hereinafter “Provisional Registration Act”) on the basis of the provisional registration of this case.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the presumption power of real estate registration, requirements for setting up against assignment of claims, liquidation procedure of provisional registration security

2. As to whether H is the Plaintiff’s agent

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, ① the auction procedure has commenced on March 27, 2003 upon the application of the Central Saemaul Depository, a collateral security, on each of the instant real estate on March 27, 2003; ② the Plaintiff, as a broker of theO operating real estate brokerage around November 2003, shall make the purchase price of each of the instant real estate as KRW 3.5 billion.