The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the claim for consent against the defendant shall be revoked, and objection.

Before determining the grounds of appeal, we examine it ex officio.

1. Article 52 (proviso)5 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that “No registration of change or correction of a right shall be made in addition to a supplementary registration where consent is obtained from a third party interested in the registration.” In this case, a third party interested in the registration refers to a registered titleholder who is likely to incur damage by permitting registration of change or correction of a right to the existing registration, and the risk of causing such damage shall be determined in accordance with the form of registration and shall not be considered.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 98Ma40, Apr. 9, 1998; Supreme Court Order 201Ma1248, Sept. 14, 2011). Therefore, a person who is not a registered titleholder is apparent not to be a third party having an interest in the registration of change or correction of a right; and it is not necessary to obtain consent from a person other than the registered titleholder in order to make the registration of change or correction of a right as an additional registration. Thus, a lawsuit claiming consent of change or correction of a right against a person other than the registered titleholder is illegal against a person who is not a registered titleholder.

(2) On February 27, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for consent to the registration of change of right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da35567, Jul. 11, 2013; 2013Da18011, Jul. 11, 2013). 2. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for consent to the registration of change of right to collateral security (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95239, Jun. 23, 2009) with regard to each land listed in the attached list of the lower judgment. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the Defendant is not a registered titleholder with respect to each land listed in the attached list, and is newly registered as a debtor by means of