소유권이전청구권가등기말소
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The defendant is the Daejeon District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to B.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts are the same as the part 1. of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that the second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance added “2010.6.4,” and the second part of the second part, “B is insolvent................................” is the same as that of the part 1. of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration. Since B and the Defendant did not actually conclude a pre-sale agreement with respect to the real estate of this case, the instant pre-sale agreement is null and void as it is by false representation of agreement. Therefore, the provisional registration of this case based on the pre-sale agreement
Even if the instant reservation is not null and void, the right to complete the instant reservation was extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period from November 14, 2003, when the instant reservation was made.
(2) The provisional registration of this case was not a provisional registration for preserving the claim for ownership transfer registration, but a provisional registration for security was not a provisional registration, but a security obligation was nonexistent or its prescription expired.
(3) Therefore, the provisional registration of this case shall be cancelled, and the plaintiff seeks to implement the procedure of cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case against the defendant B in subrogation of B in order to preserve the claim against B.
B. The provisional registration of this case by the Defendant’s assertion is the provisional registration of security established in order to secure the obligation of borrowed money of KRW 30,000,000,000 borrowed on November 12, 199 from the Defendant and KRW 15,000,000 borrowed on November 6, 200, which was borrowed on November 6, 200, which is the provisional registration of this case by the Defendant B, and the period of exclusion is not based on the false declaration of conspiracy, and it is not based on the provisional registration of security, and there is no obligation of collateral.
In addition, the statute of limitations for secured debt has been approved because B paid the interest on the above loan to the defendant several times.