Hanju-si, Mastersia***************************

Law Firm, Attorneys**

Youngsibro *****

2. Korea;

Legal Representative, Justice Kim Sung-ho

Litigation Performers***

A. Defendant No. * * implement the procedure for registration of cancellation on the ground of cancellation on January 27, 2006, with respect to the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on June 3, 2002 by the original district court of Chuncheon with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, received on June 3, 2002;

B. The defendant Republic of Korea expressed his/her intention of acceptance with respect to the registration of cancellation of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer under the above A.

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

A. On June 1, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a trade reservation (hereinafter referred to as the “sale reservation”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate of this case”) with Defendant No. *, Chuncheon District Court No. 26323 on June 3, 2002, and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional registration of this case”).

B. However, the chief of the Dongwon Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea attached the right to claim ownership transfer of the instant real estate on October 25, 2003, and completed the attachment registration under the receipt No. 57582 on October 25, 2003, which was received on October 25, 2003.

[Reasons for Recognition: Defendant Union* as to the assertion of confession, the fact that there is no dispute over the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Party’s assertion and determination thereof

A. Determination on the claim against Defendant Union*

Inasmuch as the instant reservation was lawfully rescinded by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant *, the Plaintiff on January 27, 2006 and the Defendant *, the Defendant * is obligated to cancel the instant provisional registration to the Plaintiff (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act).

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(1) The plaintiff asserts that since the contract of this case was cancelled, the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent on the cancellation registration of provisional registration of this case.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 6, since the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the agreement between the plaintiff on January 27, 2006 and the defendant ***. Thus, even if the contract of this case was made by a false declaration of intent and became null and void, as alleged by the defendant's Republic of Korea, its invalidation cannot be asserted against the defendant's Republic of Korea. Thus, at least in the legal relationship with the defendant's Republic of Korea, the contract of this case is valid, and the plaintiff can cancel the contract of this case, which is a basic contractual relationship. Thus, since the right to claim ownership transfer against the plaintiff was retroactively extinguished, the defendant's Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent as a third party with interest in the registration of cancellation of provisional registration of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant 5 is without merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da1548 (1) of the Civil Act, which did not have a new right to rescind the contract of this case.).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.