beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.04.01 2013가합18274

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s imposition B of development charges against B obtained authorization for changing the form and quality of a forest for factory site development project from the real estate indicated on December 13, 1995 (hereinafter “the completion date of the instant case”) as indicated on the attached real estate in the indication of the real estate (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

On September 11, 1998, the Defendant imposed the development charges of KRW 250,687,140 on September 11, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant imposition date”) by setting the payment deadline on KRW 250,687,140.

B B filed a revocation suit against the development charges imposed on September 11, 1998 (U.S. District Court 99Gu4228) and was revoked as to the portion exceeding KRW 237,295,710 out of the total amount of KRW 250,687,140 on July 4, 2001.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant development charges” which have been reduced due to the above revocation suit. (b)

On October 27, 2001, the defendant completed a registration of seizure and completed a registration of seizure as to the real estate on the fourth parcel including the real estate in this case on December 30, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the first registration of seizure"), and on December 199896, registered further seizure (hereinafter referred to as "the second registration of seizure"). On the other hand, D completed a registration of ownership transfer claim under Article 62116 of the receipt of the same registry office on June 11, 199, and completed the second registration based on the above provisional registration on July 14, 2005. Accordingly, the defendant's second registration of seizure was revoked ex officio.

C. On February 16, 2012, E, a creditor of the second attachment registration, filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration (Seoul Eastern District Court 201Gadan39909) by asserting that the provisional registration under the name of D, which was completed in the instant real estate against D, and the principal registration was null and void in a sales contract null and void by a false conspiracy (Seoul East East Eastern District Court 201Gadan3909). The said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, above.