Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

In approval of the judgment of the first instance court ordering the cancellation of the tea pressure registration due to the registration of establishment of mortgage and the delinquency in tax payment, the defendant's public prosecution was dismissed. However, in cancelling the registration of establishment of a false mortgage or the tea pressure registration, the cancellation of the mortgage or the automobile pressure debtor is absolutely required, and the debtor cannot be cancelled to his own account. Therefore, the defendant is merely a debtor in each exhibition collateral registration and the automobile pressure registration, and it is not a former mortgagee or the vehicle pressure creditor, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant ordered the defendant, who is not the person responsible for registration, to file an objection to the execution of each time of the registration of cancellation, was wrong interpretation of the legal principles. In addition, the first instance court and the judgment of the court below did not state that the court below failed to explain the reasons for the registration of establishment of a mortgage and the automobile pressure registration to the defendant in each exhibition, but did not state that the court below erred the interpretation of the law, and found the illegal act of omission of reasons.

However, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant is not the mortgagee or the next voltage creditor, and the defendant is not the person liable for registration to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage or the second voltage registration under the Registration Act. However, according to the records, the plaintiff's claim and the summary of the cause of the claim on this point is the full ownership of the real estate, which is not the person liable for registration to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage or the second voltage registration under the Registration Act, and the defendant sells the real estate to the plaintiff at 6,300,000 in exchange for the proceeds. Accordingly, the plaintiff is obligated to perform the registration of establishment and the second voltage registration as a complete ownership of the real estate after the cancellation of the registration of establishment and the second voltage registration. Thus, the plaintiff is seeking the cancellation of the registration as a complete ownership of the real estate. However, according to the judgment of the court of first instance, it is somewhat unclear that the plaintiff's claim based on evidence of the same purport is recognized as the person liable for registration under the Registration of the defendant Act, and it is not justified.

No. 2 of the Reasons for Appeal is that the plaintiff's major issue in this case had been 30,000 clerks, 430,000,000, and the contract was rescinded by the plaintiff's default on the payment date. The plaintiff offered 430,000 won to the defendant, but the defendant did not make any counter-payment, and the court below prepared 430,000 won of the bill No. 1 of this case No. 3 of this case's non-performance on September 30 of this year's 30,000,000 won of the bill No. 9 of this case's non-performance on September 30 of this year's 30,000,000 won of the bill No. 1 of this case's non-performance on the 30,000,000 won of this case's 4,000,0000 won of the bill of this case's 30,000 won of this case's bill.

However, among the public facts in the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the original judgment, the defendant is based on the defendant's answer, and the defendant's agent provided the plaintiff's answer and cash at the payment date of 430,000 won of the lawsuit, and the defendant merely stated in the original judgment that recognized this as legitimate provision, and even based on the summary summary case record, it cannot be found that the defendant argued that the defendant was an illegal provision, such as a debate, at the original court's decision, even though it is based on the new shares that are not asserted in the original judgment, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, and even if it is assumed that the original defendant's performance of the plaintiff's obligation is unlawful, it is a bilateral contract where the original defendant's performance of the plaintiff's obligation is to be performed simultaneously, and even if it is assumed that there is an error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment on the family rent, it cannot be viewed that the original judgment's cancellation of the contract for sale and purchase on the ground that the plaintiff's performance of obligation cannot be justified.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is deemed to be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 89 and Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Han-jin, Justice Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)