beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016. 07. 22. 선고 2015가단14807 판결

가등기 후 압류등기가 기입되고 이후 본등기가 경료된다면, 가등기가 담보가등기가 아닌 이상 압류등기는 말소됨[국승]

Title

If a provisional registration is entered after the provisional registration and the principal registration is made after the provisional registration, the provisional registration will be cancelled unless the provisional registration is a provisional registration for security.

Summary

If a provisional registration is entered after the provisional registration and the principal registration is made, the provisional registration shall be cancelled unless it is proved that the provisional registration is a provisional registration for security.

Related statutes

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

2015da14807 Cancellation of attachment registration

Plaintiff

KimA

Defendant

Korea

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 10, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

July 22, 2016

Text

1. The Defendant shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of the seizure registration completed on August 31, 201 with respect to 000 square meters, which was completed on February 7, 201 by ○○ District Court on ○○○○○○-dong 1151-2 road 55 square meters, and completed on August 31, 201, with respect to 000 square meters, ○○○ District Court on February 7, 201.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 18, 2010, the provisional registration of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the transfer of ownership (hereinafter referred to as “each provisional registration of this case”) was completed on October 18, 201 with respect to ○○○○○○-dong 1151-2, 55 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “one real estate of this case”) and 430 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the two real estate of this case”) which was owned by KimB, ○○-dong 1151-2, ○○○-dong 1151-3, 00, ○○○○○-dong 2, which was owned by KimB, and the provisional registration of the Plaintiff was completed on February 7, 2011 on August 31, 2011, on which the right holder becomes the Defendant due to the delinquency in payment of national taxes (hereinafter referred to as “each seizure registration of this case”).

B. Meanwhile, on September 14, 201, with respect to the instant real estate 1 and 2, the principal registration for ownership transfer was completed on the basis of the instant provisional registration on September 14, 201, and the registration officer notified the Defendant of the revocation ex officio of each of the instant provisional registration. However, on October 12, 2011, each of the instant provisional registrations was cited by the Defendant’s objection registrar, etc., and was not revoked.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, each of the registrations of this case should be cancelled unless there are special circumstances due to the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is null and void since the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case 1, 2 in fact by falsity, even though it was owned by KimB.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff and KimB may recognize the fact that they are in a prison relationship, the fact that part of the amount of unjust enrichment received from ○○○○ with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 was used by KimB, and the preparation of a preparatory document, etc. of the lawsuit in this case. However, the above fact of recognition alone is difficult to readily conclude that the actual owner of the real estate No. 1, 2 real estate in this case is KimB, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that each of the provisional registrations of this case was established in fact by receiving funds from thisCC and the Plaintiff as security, and that each of the registrations of this case is valid as it constitutes a provisional registration for security.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., KimB: (1) the Plaintiff did not take the provisional registration of KRW 50 million on February 16, 197; (3) the Plaintiff did not take the provisional registration of KRW 100,000,000 on September 5, 197; (4) the Plaintiff’s husband did not take the provisional registration of KRW 10,000,000,000 for the purpose of the provisional registration of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00.

C. Since KimB transferred the instant 1 and 2 real estate to the Plaintiff in excess of its obligation, the Defendant asserted that this constitutes a fraudulent act. However, if the obligor, with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, performed a legal act for the purpose of property right, the obligee can file a lawsuit to the court for revocation of the fraudulent act, and cannot be asserted as a means of attack and defense in the lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 92Da1008 delivered on January 26, 1993), and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.