With respect to the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 performed the registration procedure for the Incheon District Court’s registration and the cancellation registration procedure for the establishment of chonsegwon completed on May 1, 1997 by the receipt of No. 38519, and Defendant New Card Co., Ltd., and Korea Commercial Life Insurance Co., Ltd will express their respective acceptances regarding the registration

2. One-fifth of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

With respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis, which was completed on May 1, 1997 with the registration of the Incheon District Court and the registration of cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and Defendant New Card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Card Co., Ltd”) and Defendant Han Hansung Life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hansung Life Co., Ltd”) expressed their intention to accept the above cancellation registration. Defendant 1 delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and paid the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 625,000 per month from September 13, 2012 to the completion of delivery.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders performance under the following, is revoked. With respect to the real estate in this case, Defendant 1 performed the registration of the Incheon District Court and the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon completed on May 1, 1997 pursuant to the registration of the Incheon District Court and the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon creation completed on May 1, 1997. Defendant 1, as to the registration of cancellation, Defendant 1, the Han-do Life Credit Card (the Plaintiff, at the first instance court, claimed against Defendant 1 for cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon creation, cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon creation, delivery of the real estate in this case, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the date of completion of delivery. Defendant 1 filed a claim for cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon creation as to the real estate in this case, and the court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s request. As to this, the Plaintiff appealed only

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except where the defendant's life insurance for the defendant was transferred at the bottom of the judgment of the first instance court 2, and the defendant's life insurance for the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 3, 5, 4, 12 as "Evidence No. 8" as "Evidence No. 9," and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (the basic fact of 1.). Thus, it

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since Defendant New Card, who is the person having chonsegwon of this case, received a demand for distribution by the method of submitting a claim statement to the executing court on behalf of Defendant 1, who is the person having chonsegwon of this case, the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was extinguished by sale pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Civil Execution Act. Accordingly, Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation on the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case against the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the real estate of this case, and Defendant New Card and Hanhwa Lifelong, is a party having completed the additional

B. Determination

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

A superficies, easement, lease on a deposit basis, and registered right of lease shall be extinguished by sale in cases where it is not possible to oppose the claims for mortgage, attached claims, provisional seizure. In such cases, other superficies, easements, lease on a deposit basis, and registered right of lease shall be acquired by the buyer: Provided, That in cases of chonsegwon, if a person having a right of lease on a deposit basis makes a demand for distribution pursuant to Article 88 of the Civil Execution Act, the right of lease on a deposit basis shall be extinguished by sale (Article 91(3) and (4) of the Civil Execution Act), and the right of lease on a deposit basis shall take precedence over the registered date of the instant right of lease on a deposit basis as seen earlier. Therefore, the instant right of lease on a deposit basis is not naturally extinguished by sale, but shall be extinguished by

Defendant New Card: (a) completed the additional registration of seizure and collection order of the right to lease on a deposit basis, subject to the Incheon District Court 2007TTTT No. 2007TTTTTTTTTTTE with the title of execution of the payment order of the credit card payment claim against Defendant 1 on January 2, 2008; (b) Defendant New Card obtained a written decision of seizure and collection order of the right to lease on a deposit basis on May 31, 201, which is within the expiration date of the distribution demand, from Incheon District Court 2007TTTTTTTE13949; and (c) Defendant New Card submitted to the court of execution on May 31, 201 with the content that “the request to distribute KRW 30,187,787 to the person having chonsegwon” was accompanied by the above seizure and collection order, and (c) Defendant New Card submitted to the court of execution with the content of the right to lease on a deposit basis, which is the relevant creditor having the right to demand sale by subrogation.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, and Defendant 1 is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the instant chonsegwon, and Defendant New Card and Hanhwa Life, the third party having interests in the registration, are obligated to express their respective acceptances regarding the above cancellation registration (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da33997, Feb. 5, 199).

2) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

Although Defendant New Card’s submission of the above claim statement by subrogation of Defendant 1, even if it is deemed that the demand for distribution was made on behalf of Defendant 1, the right to lease on a deposit basis amounting to about KRW 50 million is waived by demanding approximately KRW 20 million, and this is null and void as an act exceeding the collection right possessed by Defendant New Card, and thus, it is not effective demand for distribution. However, Defendant New Card’s demand for distribution of KRW 30 million out of the claims amounting to KRW 50 million cannot be deemed as the waiver of the remaining claims (the claims not distributed to Defendant New Card will be distributed to other creditors, etc.). Thus, Defendant New Card’s assertion is without merit.

Defendant Han-do Life asserts that even if Defendant Han-do Card received a demand for distribution by subrogation of Defendant 1, Defendant 1’s receipt of the amount distributed to the right to lease on a deposit basis through the obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis and the obligation to return the lease on a deposit basis or the auction procedure of the settlor (or the owner who succeeded to the obligation to return the right to lease on a deposit basis) is in the relationship of simultaneous performance. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate and the Plaintiff did not succeed to the right because the right to lease on a deposit basis was extinguished by the sale of the instant right to lease on a deposit basis. As such, Defendant 1 cannot raise a simultaneous performance defense based on the claim for exclusion of disturbance against the Plaintiff seeking cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis or the right to lease on a deposit basis in the auction

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted on the grounds of all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of the conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the above obligation and ordering the fulfillment of the above obligation.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)