가등기말소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the intervenor accepting the defendant, including the claim extended by this court, is as follows.
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not object to and withdraw from succession, and thus, the Defendant and the Intervenor acquiring the Defendant (hereinafter “takeover Intervenor”) are ordinarily co-litigation relations. However, since only the Intervenor appealeds to the first instance court’s judgment, the Defendant cannot be considered as a party to the appellate trial, and only the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Intervenor taking over the Plaintiff is subject to the appellate court’s judgment.
2. Basic facts
A. On March 9, 1991, the acquirer’s registration-related 1) The acquirer’s registration-related 2,496 square meters before D on March 9, 1991 (hereinafter “instant land”).
2) On March 23, 1991, the Plaintiff purchased the above land in KRW 120,80,000 from E, the owner of the said land. However, on March 23, 1991, the Intervenor completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on March 22, 1991, rather than the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land, and on March 25, 191, E prepared a receipt stating that “after the establishment of the provisional registration of sale, E will provide without delay a receipt stating that “after the next land category change or the buyer requests the transfer documents required for this registration after the establishment of the provisional registration of sale.”
3) On May 4, 2009, the acquiring intervenor sold the instant land to the Defendant on the same day and additionally registers the transfer of ownership transfer claim against the provisional registration of this case on the same day (hereinafter “instant additional registration”).
(4) The acquiring intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for ownership transfer registration, and claimed that “Inasmuch as the land transfer contract between the acquiring intervenor and the Defendant was rescinded on May 4, 2009, the Defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the instant supplementary registration,” and the judgment in favor of the assignee was rendered on February 6, 2018.