A. Defendant A shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 4, 2005 by the ○○ District Court No. 33678, to Defendant A high-B;

B. Defendant DaB shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on May 3, 2005 to Nonparty CC.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

2. Claim against Defendant 1: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Claims against Defendant 2 and 3: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Basic facts

(a) Creation of preserved claims - Tax claims;

The non-party CC did not pay the national tax determined and notified as to capital gains and interest income, and the amount in arrears until now shall be KRW 382,135,820 as follows:

(Omission of List)

(b) Conclusion of a sale contract and registration of ownership transfer;

1) On May 3, 2005, ○○○○○○, 2865 forest land, 14182 square meters, and 2869 forest land and 5266 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) were entered into a sales contract to purchase KRW 264,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

2) In order to facilitate the management and sale of the real estate, the InCC made a registration of ownership transfer under the name of Defendant A on May 4, 2005 with respect to the instant real estate under the name of Defendant ○○ District Court and No. 33678, and made a registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate under the name of Defendant A, and made a registration of ownership transfer claim with respect to the instant real estate under the name of ○○ District Court and No. 33679

C. Title truster, etc. and debtor headA’s title trust agreement

1) On the other hand, the title truster, etc., on May 25, 2005, on the ground that it is easy for the title truster, etc. to exercise his authority as the owner of the instant real estate in the internal relationship with Defendant A, on the part of his agent, made a power of delegation to Defendant A, who is a delegating authority for all sale and purchase of the instant real estate, and made the Defendant A to affix his seal to Defendant A.

2) In addition, on July 17, 2005, the real estate of this case was jointly invested by the title truster, etc. for the purpose of clarifying the relationship of rights, and the title truster, etc. prepared a joint investment contract agreed to jointly distribute at the time of disposition and signed and sealed by each of them.

2. Right of subrogation - Right of subrogation following a title trust agreement and right of cancellation for registration following any change in real rights and ownership;

Claim for the previous registration

A. Supreme Court's attitude;

The Supreme Court held that “If an existing title trust agreement and the registration based thereon are invalidated due to the lapse of the grace period prescribed in the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the real estate held in the title trust return to the seller, so that the seller can seek cancellation of the registration under the name of the title trustee, which is null and void, and on the other hand, the sales contract between the seller and the title truster remains valid even after the expiration of the grace period, since the seller and the title truster did not have any provision denying the validity of the sales contract between the seller and the title truster, the title truster may seek cancellation of the registration under the name of the title trustee by subrogation of the seller in order to preserve the seller’s right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership (Supreme Court Decision 9Da21738 delivered on September

B. Defendant HighB’s right to exclude interference

As seen earlier, as long as the instant title trust agreement and any change in real rights arising therefrom are entirely null and void, Defendant 1B, the seller, is deemed the owner of the instant real estate. As such, Defendant 3B may seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in its name against Defendant 2A based on the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on ownership.

(c) A claim for ownership transfer registration of a humanCC;

In addition, the sales contract between Defendant DaB, the seller, and CC, the truster, is still valid regardless of the invalidity of the above title trust agreement. Therefore, Defendant DaB is obliged to bear the obligation to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to CC.

D. Plaintiff’s subrogation claim

The plaintiff may seek the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant head-A, who is the trustee, in lieu of the defendant head-A, in order to preserve that right, along with the right to claim the ownership transfer registration against the defendant High-B.

3. The insolvency of a humanCC; and

In accordance with Article 86(3)(i) and (ii) of the National Tax Collection Act, there is no active property other than the instant real estate trusted to the Defendant, and the director of the tax office of ○○○ Tax Office written off the delinquent tax amount on February 10, 201 pursuant to Article 86(3)(ii) of the National Tax Collection Act.

On the other hand, humanCC's tax liability is 382,135,820 won in excess of the positive property.

4. Non-exercise of rights of humanCC; and

In spite of the exercise of the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the title trust of real estate, IndianCC is not exercising that right until the date of the lawsuit.

5. Conclusion

Where a title trust agreement prescribed by the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name and the registration based thereon are null and void, the sales contract between the seller of real estate under title trust and the title truster still remains valid regardless of the invalidity of the above title trust agreement. Thus, in order to preserve the seller’s right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership, the title truster may seek for the cancellation of the registration under his/her name against the title trustee, etc. by subrogation of the seller. Thus, the Plaintiff, the tax claimant against InCC, the title truster, was entitled to exercise the right to subrogation of