2. The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon established on July 28, 1998 by ○○ District Court No. 74207, which was completed on July 28, 1998 against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

3. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

4. The total cost of the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and Defendant Hong○○ is borne by the said Defendant, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea are borne by the Plaintiff

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 4-8, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 7-8, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 26, Eul evidence 1-1-6, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 12-1 through 12-6, Eul's evidence 12-2, Eul's evidence 1-2, and Eul's evidence 1-2, Kim Jong-nam of the first instance court and the first instance court, the witness Kim ○, the witness of the first instance court, the witness of the first instance court, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On January 1, 1998, Defendant Hong○○ leased from Nonparty Kim○-nam, the owner of the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “N”) the first floor amusement restaurant, 1091.2m2m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “N”) of the instant building, Defendant Hong○ operated the instant gym club with the trade name, ○○○○○○○○○○E, from the 17th day of the same month.

B. As the financial situation of Kim Jong-nam aggravated, in preparation for the case where the auction procedure against the building of this case was in progress, the defendant Red ○○ completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon with the name of 3.5 million won on July 28, 1998 on the building of this case from Kim Jong-nam as the receipt of 74207 of the ○○○ District Court on July 28, 1998, and the scope of the lease of this case, the lease of this case, the duration of the lease of this case from January 15, 1998 to January 14, 2001, and completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon with the intention of evading compulsory execution in three names, including Kim Sung-○, etc.

C. On August 198, 1998, the above Kim Jong-nam defaulted, and on September 14 of the same year, the decision of voluntary decision of auction was rendered by the ○○ District Court 98 Doz. 10087 on the building and its site.

D. Meanwhile, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant chonsegwon on December 28, 1998 on the ground of Defendant Hong○○’s delinquency in tax payment, and completed the additional registration of seizure on the instant chonsegwon as ○○ District Court No. 2338, Jan. 9, 1999.

E. On March 6, 1999, Defendant Red ○○ discontinued the above age club, but introduced the Plaintiff to Kim○-nam as the purchaser of the instant building and site. On April 1, 200, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building and site from Kim○-nam on April 1, 200 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the 27th of the same month. On May 10 of the same year, the said decision of voluntary decision of commencement was revoked. Meanwhile, in the Plaintiff’s purchase process, the Plaintiff and Kim Hong-Nam cancelled all the registration of seizure, provisional seizure, the registration of establishment of chonsegwon, and the registration of establishment of collateral security except for the instant registration of right to lease on a deposit basis and the supplementary registration of the said seizure.

F. On May 2, 200, the Plaintiff leased the entire building of this case to Nonparty Hong-○, the wife of Defendant Hong○, from May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2005, and from May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2001, for one year from April 30, 2001, from May 1, 2000 to four years from May 1, 2000, from May 1, 200 to April 30, 2005, for four years from May 1, 200 to April 30, 2005, and for one year from May 1, 200 to April 30, 2000 to KRW 40,00 (value-added tax). Around that time, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Kim Hong-○ District Court with the same applicant as the above contract signed on July 1, 2007.

G. Since September 200, 2000, Kim ○○ used an entertainment entertainment drinking business with mutual trade name, when delivering the first floor of entertainment restaurant 1.091.2 square meters (the pertinent leased part) under the ground of the instant building, which is the object leased by the Plaintiff, at around that time.

On the other hand, on December 13, 200, under the joint and several guarantee of the defendant Hong○ Kim Jong-dong, the defendant Hong○ agreed to transfer all of the rights under the above entertainment tavern business and building lease contract to ○○○○ on December 13, 200, when borrowing KRW 300 million from the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong, the plaintiff's living together, with interest rate of KRW 2% per month, and the due date of repayment on May 30, 2001.

H. However, Kim Jong-do delayed the payment of rent of KRW 400 million and KRW 100 million, which was decided to increase from May 1, 2001, and the amount of rent of KRW 100 million on May 2001, and June 2001, when the Plaintiff demanded delivery of the building pursuant to the above complaint, on July 31, 2001, the Plaintiff agreed to order the instant building between the Plaintiff and the firstman on July 31, 2001 and to waive all rights under the above lease agreement, and pursuant to the agreement, the entire building of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff around September 2001.

I. Meanwhile, on February 15, 2006, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff donated the instant building to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff and transferred its ownership.

2. 피고 홍ㅇㅇ에 대한 청구에 관한 판단

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor first, the Defendant: (a) leased the leased portion of this case to KRW 250 million; (b) did not pay the rent of KRW 170 million among them; (c) was anticipated to default the payment of KRW 1.7 million; (d) the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor secured the remainder of the lease deposit; and (e) concluded the instant lease lease contract in collusion with Kim○nam for the purpose of evading compulsory execution; (b) concluded the instant lease lease contract with the intention to evade compulsory execution; and (c) subsequently, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor had completed the instant lease lease registration by pretending to have concluded the instant lease lease contract with the money of KRW 350 million; and (d) the said KRW 170 million was still overdue at the time of the purchase of the instant building; and (e) the Plaintiff’s right to refund the lease deposit was extinguished. Accordingly, the said Defendant

As to this, Defendant Hong○ asserts that the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of KRW 350,000 is valid, since he paid the lease deposit amount to Kim○-nam, and he was leased the lease portion of this case, and then was established on a deposit basis, and it is not a false right to lease on a deposit basis by notification, but a deposit still remains.

B. Determination

(1) First, we examine whether the lease deposit amount of 3.5 million won of the instant chonsegwon is true, i.e., whether Defendant Red○○ was KRW 3.5 million.

On the other hand, the testimony of the above Kim Jong-nam corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion, while the above Kim Jong-hee's testimony and its factual confirmation (No. 2) conforms to the defendant's assertion. Above all, the defendant is unable to submit a receipt or other evidence other than the receipt (No. 1. 70,000 won) paid for the lease deposit, and even without submitting the lease contract, the defendant's own credibility of his assertion is lowered, and the witness Kim Jong-hee did not participate in the conclusion of the lease contract and the payment of the lease deposit. On the other hand, Kim Jong-Nam is a party to the above lease contract with the above defendant, and it is hard to believe that the above defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's testimony to return the deposit money of this case to the defendant in spite of the fact that the plaintiff's testimony did not harm the credibility of the deposit money of this case to the defendant's real right to lease on a deposit basis.

Therefore, even though the lease deposit actually paid by Defendant Red○○ was only KRW 2.5 million or KRW 1.7 million, it is deemed that the above Defendant and Kim○nam concluded a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis by pretending the deposit amount to be KRW 3.5 million in collusion with the above Defendant. As such, the part of the contract to lease on a deposit basis in excess of the actual deposit amount is apparent to be null and void as a juristic act by false conspiracy and registration based thereon, and even in the part not exceeding the actual deposit, the intention of Kim○-nam and the above Defendant was to expect the deduction of the deposit amount as the overdue rent during the auction procedure, while the above Defendant anticipated that the deposit amount would be deducted as the overdue rent, and thus, the contract to lease on a deposit basis in this case is null and void as it constitutes a false conspiracy.

(2) Next, we examine whether Defendant Hong○○’s lease deposit remains at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant building.

As seen earlier, if the above Kim Jong-nam testified that the full amount of the deposit was advanced, it would have been assumed that if the deposit for lease on a deposit basis was remaining at that time, the above defendant's default payment would have been paid as the deposit for lease on a deposit basis and returned the balance to the above defendant, and the above defendant would have cancelled the registration for the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis and the additional registration for the seizure on a deposit basis. On the other hand, the above defendant did not present an explanation to the point that the above defendant's default payment was not possible due to the absence of the deposit for the above defendant's default, and the registration for the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit was not cancelled at the time of the execution of the right to lease on a deposit basis. Even if the above defendant's right to lease on a deposit was left for the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis without returning it to the plaintiff on a deposit for lease on a deposit basis on a deposit basis, the defendant did not request the above defendant to return the deposit for lease on a deposit for lease on a deposit basis of 350 million won in arrears.

(3) Therefore, since the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of false prior agreement was invalid as well as the lease deposit secured by the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case as the registration based on false prior agreement, Defendant Red○○ is liable to implement the registration procedure of cancellation to the Plaintiff succeeding Intervenor.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Determination on the main defense of this case

The defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the attachment disposition for tax collection is an administrative act and can file a claim for revocation by administrative litigation, and cannot immediately file a claim for consent to the cancellation of the attachment registration by civil litigation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

In this case, where the registration of a third party is null and void even if the registration of a third party is made by the tax authority's disposition on default, the person who seeks to cancel the registration of invalidation may seek consent to cancel the registration of seizure to the State, etc. as a civil lawsuit. However, whether the State, etc. bears the obligation of consent is determined by the substantive law in relation to the right holder of the cancellation registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do43753, Apr. 27, 2007). The legal principle asserted by the defendant Republic of Korea can be applied to cases where the other party to the attachment disposition does not seek the cancellation of the attachment disposition as an administrative litigation and immediately claims the cancellation of the attachment registration in a civil lawsuit without seeking the cancellation of the attachment disposition. Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

B. Judgment on the merits

(1) The plaintiff asserts that since the contract to establish the right to lease on a deposit basis is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy, the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis is also null and void. Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea bears the duty of consent for

However, the defendant Republic of Korea is a third party who has a new interest based on a legal relationship based on a false conspiracy, its good faith is presumed, and any third party acting in good faith cannot assert the invalidity of a false conspiracy. Thus, the plaintiff cannot assert against the defendant Republic of Korea the invalidity of a contract establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis of the contract establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis and the invalidity of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis based thereon. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) The plaintiff succeeding intervenor asserts that the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is to secure the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the plaintiff by Hong○○○, and that the above claim for the return of the lease deposit was extinguished by the rent due to the above defendant's delay, and that the lease deposit can be set up against the defendant's Republic of Korea due to the nature of the lease deposit secured by the overdue rent. Thus, the defendant's Republic of Korea

However, the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis constitutes a false agreement with the defendant's Republic of Korea, but the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis is valid in relation to the defendant's Republic of Korea. On the other hand, even if there is a special agreement between the parties on the lease on a deposit basis, this is not registered and thus it cannot be asserted against any third party. In this case, the defendant's Republic of Korea shall not be deducted from the deposit money for a lease on a deposit basis. Therefore, the whole amount of the deposit money for a lease on a deposit basis of the defendant's Republic of Korea remains. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit ( even if the contract to lease on a deposit basis does not constitute a false agreement within the scope of the deposit money for a lease on a deposit basis, Kim ○-nam and the defendant Red ○○○ did an external act of the contract to lease on a deposit basis while concealing the contract without the agreement to lease on a deposit basis, and even if it can be asserted that the contract to lease on a deposit on a deposit basis only after concealing the lease between the parties and the plaintiff 198.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Red ○ is justified, and the claim against the defendant is dismissed for lack of reason. Since the part against the defendant Red ○○ among the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant's Red ○ is unfair with different conclusions, it is revoked and the above defendant is ordered to cancel the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case. The part against the defendant's Republic of Korea in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion with the

(At present, Building Indication)

Daegu Suwon-dong 1054-5, 1054-10

Medical facilities with 5-story floors of reinforced concrete structure sloping roof

1,091 square meters at an underground 1st floor hospital;

1st floor hospital (parking, stairs room) 275.81m2

267.38 square meters in a 1st floor hospital

The 840.90 square meters in each hospital with 2 to 5 floors.

(Indication of Building at Time of Registration of Ownership Preservation)

Daegu Suwon-dong 1054-5, 1054-10

Facilities for neighborhood life, amusement, viewing and meeting of 5 floors of reinforced concrete structure sloping roof;

Entertainment restaurant 1,091 square meters on the underground 1st floor;

1st floor office, parking lot, and 340.96 square meters in a stairs room;

(73.14 square meters in the internal office or office)

2. 2nd floor general restaurants 840.90 square meters

840.90 square meters in a 3-story wedding hall

The end of 840.90 square meters for 4 stories and 5 stories each general restaurant.