2. The plaintiff's claim against defendant KimCC and Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant KimCC, and Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

(a) Description of the claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

B. Applicable statutes

Judgment on Confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to Defendant KimCC and Korea’s claim

(a) Basic facts;

(1) On June 10, 2004, Defendant KimCC concluded a lease agreement with Defendant BB by setting the lease deposit OOO on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Defendant BB from August 30, 2004 to August 29, 2006, and extended the lease term by increasing the lease deposit as OOO on September 25, 2006. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19508, Aug. 30, 2008>

(2) On January 3, 2005, Defendant B made a registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of chonsegwon”) with the duration of the lease on a deposit basis as of September 30, 2006, with the term of the lease on a deposit basis as of September 30, 2006.

(3) As of May 4, 2006, August 23, 2006, and September 28, 2006, Defendant KimCC completed a seizure registration based on the overdue portion as of September 28, 2006 on the instant real estate. Defendant KimCC completed a provisional seizure registration based on the claim amount as of February 15, 2008.

(4) After the extension of the above lease agreement, Defendant KimCC confirmed that the registration of the establishment of the instant chonsegwon and the registration of various seizure have been completed through the perusal of the registry, and filed a complaint against Defendant B in fraud. Defendant BB, without the Plaintiff’s consent, made the proxy of the Plaintiff’s agent as Defendant BB, and delivered to Defendant KimCC the power to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant chonsegwon along with the certificate of the right to registration of the establishment of the instant chonsegwon.

(5) On October 2, 2012, Defendant KimCC completed the registration of cancellation on the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter referred to as “registration of cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Parties’ assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was duly made by the plaintiff for the purpose of securing loans, etc. against the defendant B. The registration of the cancellation of this case was voluntarily made by the defendant KimCC without the consent of the plaintiff and the defendant B, and thus the cause is null and void. Thus, the defendant KimCC, the third party interested in the registration as the seizure authority, and the Republic of Korea, have the obligation to express their consent to

On the other hand, Defendant KimCC and Korea asserted that the cancellation registration of this case was duly made by delegation by the Plaintiff and Defendant BB, or that the cancellation registration of this case is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship.

C. Determination

As seen earlier, it is not sufficient to recognize that the registration of cancellation in this case was completed without the plaintiff's consent, and the entries in Eul or Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone are sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff granted the defendant KimCC the right to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis in this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Thus, the registration of cancellation in this case was made unlawful without the plaintiff's consent.

However, even if a cancellation registration was made improperly, if it is a valid registration that conforms to the substantive relationship, it cannot be registered for recovery (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2203, May 26, 1987). Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff actually monetary claims against the Defendant BB against the Defendant B at present.

According to the following circumstances: (a) Defendant B was in arrears with taxes since 2002; (b) the Plaintiff’s interest rate of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

Therefore, the cancellation registration of this case is a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship, and thus it cannot be filed for the restoration registration. Accordingly, there is no reason for seeking the Plaintiff’s declaration of consent to Defendant KimCC and Korea based on the premise of the cancellation restoration registration.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Lee Dong-B is justified, and the claim against the defendant KimCC and the Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.