There is a duty to accept the procedure for recovery registration as a third party who has an interest in the registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage.

Since the fact that the cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate is recognized formally by the entry in the register that the damage is likely to occur if the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate is made after the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate was completed, it constitutes an interested third party and is obliged to accept

2012da 188666 Registration of recovery from cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage

IsaA

KimB 5 others

April 4, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. The Plaintiff, and the 2106/13689/1360 of 1510 of 157 square meters among the 000 forest land in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and the defendant KimB, the Incheon District Court, Seocheon Registry of the Incheon District Court, and the defendant KimB, cancelled by 1021577 of the receipt on December 12, 201, the registration procedure for recovery of the establishment of neighboring mortgages No. 70700 of the receipt on October 21, 2009, were implemented, the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, the Sinsi, and the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the National Health Insurance Corporation, expressed their consent on the implementation of the respective recovery registration procedure

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The grounds for cancelling the registration of creation of neighboring mortgage by the plaintiff

1) On September 22, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage contract (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage contract of this case") with Defendant KimB on the share of 2106/1369 square meters out of 15157 square meters of 000 OO, Seo-dong, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, which is owned by Defendant KimB (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), and completed the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case on October 21, 2009 with respect to the real estate of this case as the receipt of Seocheon-gu, Incheon District Court No. 70700, the maximum debt amount of 000 won (hereinafter referred to as the "mortgage of the registration of establishment of the mortgage of this case").

2) On April 28, 2011, the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, one of the creditors of Defendant KimB, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for revocation of fraudulent act by asserting that the instant mortgage agreement between Defendant KimB and the Plaintiff was a fraudulent act, and the Seoul Central District Court 20171-Ma157804, which was the first instance court, served the notice of the complaint and the date of pleading by service, and served the Plaintiff by public notice. On September 6, 201, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the claim of the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund in entirety, and the original judgment also served on the Plaintiff by public notice.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served, and the first instance judgment became formally final and conclusive around that time, and based on the above final judgment, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff was cancelled by Seoul Central District Court No. 102157 on December 12, 201.

(b) Revocation of a judgment in the first instance;

The plaintiff filed subsequent appeal against the judgment of Seoul Central District Court No. 2012Na6645 at the latest, around October 2012, and the appellate court rendered a judgment revoking the judgment of the first instance court and dismissing the defendant's claim against the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's subsequent appeal was lawful on September 21, 2012, and that the contract to establish the right to collateral security was not constituted a fraudulent act, and that the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive on October 17, 2012.

C. After the establishment registration of the establishment of the instant real estate was cancelled, the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, the Ansan-si, the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the Republic of Korea, and the Defendants registered the provisional seizure or seizure of the instant real estate as follows:

[Attachment] omitted

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case was cancelled in the form of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 201Da157804 that the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case must be cancelled as the fraudulent act of this case, but the above judgment was cancelled by the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 201Na157804, and the above judgment was cancelled by the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 201Na6645, and the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case that was cancelled by the above judgment of the first instance court is invalid, and the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund has the obligation to implement the procedure

B. In addition, the remaining Defendants except the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund are those who registered the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant real estate, and completed the provisional attachment registration and the seizure registration, and are recognized formally by the entry in the registry as being likely to incur damage when the registration of the cancellation of the establishment of the instant real estate was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997). In such a case, the third parties having interests in the registration are liable to accept the procedure of the restoration registration, regardless of good faith, bad faith, and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da540, Apr. 11, 200; 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 1997). The Defendants are obligated to express their intent to the procedure of the registration of the establishment of the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is with merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.