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

The following facts are acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-2 through 8, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the results of fact inquiry about the racing market of the party members.

A. On April 24, 191, the non-party Kim Jae-sik obtained a construction permit of 180 households of apartment houses on the site stated in the order (at the time of sale, it is marked with 17 block 4 block housing site development; hereinafter referred to as the site in this case) from the mayor of the racing market, and constructed on May 10 of the same year, he obtained a construction permit of 180 households of apartment houses, and completed the construction on May 10 of the same year. On August 5, 191, the non-party Kim Jae-sik obtained approval of the proposal for the recruitment of occupants of the above apartment from the racing market, he distributed the application form for parcelling-out, and publicly announced the

B. On August 26, 1991, Plaintiff Kim Sung-sung completed the registration of ownership as to the portion 180 out of the right to the site of this case, each of which was sold in lots, Nos. 605, 301, and No. 603, 1407, and each of which was sold in lots on June 21, 1993, and completed the registration of ownership as to the portion 180 among the right to the site of this case.

C. However, with respect to the instant site on January 6, 1993, Nonparty Kim Jae-sik completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage agreement as of January 4, 1993, the right to collateral security agreement, the maximum debt amount of KRW 400,000,000, and the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) as the Defendant.

2. Validity of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage;

A. Provisions of the statute

According to Article 32 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530, Dec. 8, 1992); Article 7 (4) of the former Rules on Housing Supply (amended by the Ordinance No. 537, Sep. 1, 1993); Article 7 (3) of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance No. 537, Sep. 1, 1993); Article 32-3 of the same Act provides that a project operator (a housing construction project or housing site preparation project operator, etc. registered under Article 6 of the same Act, etc.) shall not provide the relevant housing and housing as security after the public announcement of invitation of occupants; Article 32-3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act was newly established as Act No. 4530, Dec. 8, 1992; Article 333 (1) of the same Act, a project operator shall not establish the housing or housing site which was constructed under the previous Rules No. 93 of Housing Construction Promotion Act, for the purpose of supplying the housing or housing site concerned without consent thereto. 160.

B. Determination

Ultimately, according to the above facts and the provisions of the law, it is clear that Kim Jae-sik concluded with the defendant on January 4, 1993 that the above Kim Jae-sik violated Article 7 (4) of the former Rules on Housing Supply. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of the attached Table 7 (1) 1 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the purpose of which is to provide for matters necessary for the construction of housing and the raising, operation, etc. of funds for the purpose of stabilizing the residential stability of all citizens without housing and enhancing their residential standards, it is reasonable to interpret that the above provision is more likely to violate Article 3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, since the Housing Construction Promotion Act's legislative purpose is to ensure that if the business operator fails to comply with the terms, methods, and procedures of the housing supply provided by the Minister of Construction and Transportation or to impose a fine not exceeding 5 million won, it would be more likely that the above provision would violate the Housing Construction Promotion Act's regulations on the construction of multi-family housing and the above provision on the housing supply transfer registration for 10% to 20% or less of housing units.

Therefore, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage contract, which is based on the above mortgage contract which is null and void due to a violation of Article 7 (4) of the above Rules on Housing Supply, should be cancelled as the cause of invalidation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the above neighboring mortgage as the joint owner's act of preservation of the building site of this case, so the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-soo (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-cheon Civil Semesters