2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate stated in attached Table 1 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1, as well as the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the provisional registration completed on November 2, 2005 under the receipt of No. 59532, Mar. 10, 2007.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2, both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff) 1, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) 1 cancelled the provisional registration as to the real estate stated in attached Table 1, and the Defendant 3 executes the registration of this court and the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring collective housing that was completed on December 21, 2005 according to the registration of this court as to the real estate stated in attached Table 2, No. 68710, Dec. 20, 2005, and the registration of the apartment listed in attached Table 3, No. 401, Dec. 21, 2005 (No. 401).

Counterclaim: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) 1 shall implement the procedure of ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration completed by the court No. 59532 on Nov. 2, 2005 and the provisional registration completed by the court No. 59532 on Apr. 30, 2006 on Nov. 1, 2005 with respect to the real estate stated in attached Table 1 to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) 1.

A. On October 10, 2005, Plaintiff 2 concluded a contract to purchase (the instant sales contract) a corporation of Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court) (the registration of incorporation on August 10, 2004, the representative director Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd.) with a license for reinforced concrete construction (number omitted) from Defendant 2 to KRW 110 million (the instant sales contract).

B. On October 20, 2005, Plaintiff 2 paid to Defendant 2 the down payment of KRW 20 million among the above KRW 110 million, and on October 25, 2005, Plaintiff 2 changed the name of the representative director of Nonparty 1 corporation to Nonparty 3 upon Plaintiff 2’s request.

C. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1 and Defendant 3 are Defendant 2’s own consciousness.

D. On November 7, 2005, Plaintiff 2 drafted the following notes upon Nonparty 4’s demand for the payment of the remainder.

(1) The balance of transfer by November 18, 2005 shall be fully paid.

(2) A bill shall be exchanged in cash, one at the place designated by the transferor to which the transferee designates.

③ At the time of the above promise, the contract shall be reversed and the down payment shall not be refunded.

(4) After the remainder payment (90 million won) is completed, all the documents of face value shall be exceeded. At the same time, provisional registration shall also be terminated.

E. The registration of this court and the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (the provisional registration of this case) was completed on November 2, 2005 with respect to the apartment as stated in paragraph (1) of the attached list owned by the Plaintiff 1 (No. 101) and the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (the provisional registration of this case) was completed on November 2, 2005, and the registration of this court with respect to the apartment as stated in the attached list 2. (No. 303) in the attached list No. 3, as to the apartment as stated in the attached list No. 2. 20, Dec. 20, 2005, the registration of this court with respect to the apartment as stated in the attached list No. 58710, Dec. 20, 2005, and the registration of the establishment of each maximum debt amount of 50 million won was completed on December 21, 2005.

F. On October 23, 2006, Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. was subject to a disposition of revocation of registration on the ground that Nonparty 1 applied for registration of a construction business by illegal means by lending national technical qualification certificates of construction system technicians and construction material technicians from the head of the Gu.

E. The plaintiff 2 did not pay the remainder of KRW 90 million, and the non-party 5, who became the representative director of the non-party 1 corporation, following the non-party 3, paid 96 million won to the defendant 2 on January 6, 2006 until February 20, 2006, and written a written statement to transfer the non-party 1 corporation's construction face value to the defendant 2, but the above non-party 5 did not pay the above money to the defendant 2.

[A. 5, B. 6, and Non-strifed Parts]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that since the construction business license was revoked on October 23, 2006 on the ground that the non-party 1 corporation, which is the subject of the instant sales contract, lent two licenses at the time of application for registration of the construction business on September 2, 2004, the construction business license was revoked, the contract of this case was revoked according to the warranty liability under Article 580(1) of the Civil Act, and returned the down payment 20 million won to the original state, and sought cancellation of the provisional registration and the collateral security registration for the instant real estate established for the purpose of securing the remainder 90 million won.

B. The important purpose of the transfer contract of Nonparty 1 corporation is to issue a promissory note even to the bank, and thus, Plaintiff 2 did not have any records of construction work after acquiring the non-party 1 corporation. Defendant 2 granted Plaintiff 2 a promissory note in the name of the non-party 1 corporation to the non-party 2 and used it in whole by Plaintiff 2, thereby achieving the purpose of the contract. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion of cancellation is unjust.

In addition, the provisional registration of 101 of this case was completed as a security for the balance, and as Defendant 1 sent a notice of liquidation amount on January 10, 2007, he asserts that the registration of ownership transfer should be completed after the completion of the liquidation period.

3. As to the plaintiffs' assertion of removal of principal action

A. The issue of whether the instant sales contract was rescinded is whether the main purpose of the said sales contract was a construction business license or a bank has issued a promissory note.

B. After acquiring the instant non-party 1 corporation, the fact that the Plaintiff 2 entered into the construction contract or did not actually perform the construction work by using the construction license of the said corporation is examined as seen earlier, and the following circumstances are examined after the said sales contract was concluded.

(1) On October 20, 2005, Defendant 2 received the down payment of KRW 20 million from Plaintiff 2, and then changed the name of the representative of Nonparty 1 Stock Company from Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 2 requested the cooperation of current account transaction by finding to the person in charge of the North Korean branch of the Korean Bank from Nonparty 2 as Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 2.

(2) On November 2, 2005, Defendant 2 demanded from Plaintiff 2 to issue a promissory note, set up a provisional registration under Defendant 1 as a collateral under subparagraph 101, and issued four copies of a promissory note to Plaintiff 2 on November 9, 2005.

Defendant 2, on November 22, 2005, did not receive any balance upon Plaintiff 2’s request again, but did not receive any balance, but, on the part of Nonparty 3, the copies of promissory notes and promissory notes issued, corporate seal imprints, corporate seal imprints, cards, and other certified copies of corporate register to Nonparty 3, and on the part of Nonparty 1’s payment date issued by Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd., two copies of promissory notes of KRW 43 million and KRW 53 million.

(3) When Nonparty 3 was unable to settle the amount of the above KRW 43 million against Defendant 2, Nonparty 3 filed a criminal complaint with Defendant 2 with the National Bank on the said bill, and filed a criminal complaint with Defendant 2 to not deposit a separate deposit with the said bank, but dismissed.

(4) Accordingly, there is a defect that Defendant 2 would make legal response to Plaintiff 2 and present another promissory note to payment, and Plaintiff 2 would have established and made the said collateral registration in the future of Defendant 3, No. 301 and No. 403.

(5) The Plaintiff 2 issued 10 bills in the name of Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. from Defendant 2. Of them, only 10 million won was settled at a normal price. The remaining nine bills issued at KRW 458,50,000, total face value, were in default on payment due to trade or alteration.

On March 6, 2006, the current account transaction with Nonparty 1 Company and the North Korean branch of the Korean National Bank was terminated on the ground that Plaintiff 2 did not submit data for explanation of the alteration of a promissory note to the bank.

(6) Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration pursuant to the above provisional registration on June 14, 2006 with Plaintiff 2 who did not continue to pay the above purchase and sale balance, and on June 14, 2006, Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration pursuant to the above provisional registration, and on May 12, 2006 upon the registration of the above collateral security, Defendant 1 rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction by the court around 10480 and 10497.

(7) At the time of the instant sales contract, the sales price of a corporation with no records of construction business license was 20 million won, and a corporation with a certain degree of performance and which can carry out current account transactions with the bank was 70 million won to 80 million won.

Current account transactions of a corporation licensed for construction business shall be carried out after a financial institution receives two million won per deposit after investigating the records of projects or the credit of the representative director.

[Evidence] A6, witness Nonparty 2, national bank fact inquiry, overall purport of pleading, evidence A8.

C. According to the above facts, the sales contract of the non-party 1 corporation of this case is an important purpose to carry out current account transactions, such as the issuance of promissory notes by banks rather than a construction work.

In addition, even if the above non-party 1 corporation's license was revoked, it is not impossible or suspended to conduct the current account transaction under the name of the non-party 1 corporation. The reason why the current account transaction with the non-party 1 corporation and the North Korean branch of the Korean National Bank was suspended on March 6, 2006 is that the non-party 2 did not submit the data for explanation of the alteration of the promissory note in Chapter 9, which was defaulted by the non-party 2. Thus, it is not attributable to

Therefore, the cancellation of the sales contract of this case cannot be asserted on the ground of the cancellation of the construction business license, which is an incidental purpose, rather than an important purpose of the sales contract of this case, and only damages can be recognized for the incidental damage. Therefore, the plaintiffs' principal claim of this case is groundless.

4. As to the defendant 1's counterclaim

A. According to Eul 10, on January 10, 2007, the defendant 1 notified the plaintiff 1 of the appraised value of the liquidation amount of 101 of this case. According to this, the defendant 101 of this case is about about 170 million won and the maximum debt amount of 145 million won is about 90 million won and the liquidation amount to be paid to the plaintiff 1 of this case is determined not to remain.

B. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1 is obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Defendant 1 on the ground of the return of the substitute on March 10, 2007, which was completed two months from the liquidation period, on March 10, 2007.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed, and defendant 1's counterclaim is accepted, so it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Lee Jong-sung