2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On May 30, 2005, the defendant expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed by the OOOOO on the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

"A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), on May 11, 2005, on the ground of the division of co-owned property on May 12, 2005, the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul District Court No. OOOOOOOO No. 200 on May 12, 2005, and the registration of the transfer of all co-owners' shares (OrderO No. 200 on May 2, 2005) was completed on May 30, 2005, the provisional registration of the receipt OOOO No. 200 on May 30, 2005 (hereinafter "the provisional registration of the ownership transfer claim in this case") was completed on May 30, 205."

D. On June 17, 2010, the Defendant seized the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the above purchase and sale agreement against KimB. In addition, on the real estate of this case, on June 17, 2010, the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed on June 17, 2010, the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership (referred to as the registration of attachment; hereinafter referred to as the "registration of this case") was completed on June 17, 2010 in the same registry office in the name of the Defendant for the registration of the provisional attachment of the right to claim the transfer of ownership as to the real estate of this case (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Da80599), and on June 13, 2012, the judgment of the court below ruled that the above right to claim the transfer of ownership became final and conclusive on October 20, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "right to claim the transfer of ownership").

2. At first, KimCC had the above real estate owner KimB registered the ownership transfer right with the principal registration and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff, but the agreement between KimCC and the Plaintiff and the above KimB entered into between the Plaintiff and the above KimB on the condition that the registration of ownership transfer right transfer right of this case was revoked, and the Plaintiff made the registration of ownership transfer directly from the above KimB for convenience.

3. Therefore, since the right to claim ownership transfer of this case is a provisional registration without any cause, the plaintiff would have reached this claim to seek the procedure for the cancellation registration of the above provisional registration.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

Since the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of this case is a registration without any cause and the judgment related to this case ordering the cancellation registration becomes final and conclusive, there is no reason to seize the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of this case. Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff to express his/her consent to the registration of the cancellation of the

2) Defendant

The plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be deemed to have the obligation to consent under the substantive law as to the cancellation registration of the right to claim transfer of this case.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 57 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that the consent of a third party shall be required when there is a third party who has an interest in the registration of cancellation in the case of applying for a cancellation of registration. In this context, the right holder on the registration that is likely to incur loss by making a cancellation registration of a third party having an interest in the registration is recognized formally by the entry in the register, and whether the third party bears an obligation of consent is determined by whether the third party has an obligation under the substantive law in relation to the right holder on the registration of cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da43753, Apr. 27, 2007).

2) In the instant case:

Inasmuch as the title holder of the instant attachment registration, which is the additional registration of the ownership transfer claim, is the title holder of the instant attachment registration, and the instant claim for ownership transfer is likely to inflict damage on the Defendant due to the cancellation of the registration, the Defendant constitutes a third party with an interest in the registration under Article 57 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Furthermore, as to whether the Defendant bears the obligation to accept the instant claim for ownership transfer registration with respect to the cancellation of the registration. According to the above findings of recognition, the Defendant entered into an agreement with KimBB, KimCC, and the Plaintiff to cancel the instant claim for ownership transfer registration in the name of KimB, KimB, KimCC, and to make an intermediate omission registration from KimB, and thereafter, the judgment of this case ordering the cancellation of the instant claim for ownership transfer registration with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration, was rendered final and conclusive. In addition, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have asserted against the Defendant that the instant claim for ownership transfer cannot be asserted against the Defendant under the substantive law as long as there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s claim for ownership transfer registration.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.