Since the instant real estate was seized after the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security, there is a duty of consent to the registration of restitution.

Since the registration of cancellation of the real estate of this case was confirmed to be null and void by judgment, the Republic of Korea which seized the real estate of this case after registration of cancellation has a duty to express his/her consent on the registration of cancellation of the

Restoration of Registration under Article 59 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

2017 Ghana 5240505 De-mortgage

AA

Republic of Korea 1

Korea’s seizure of this case’s real property upon due taxation claims against BB

was a right that takes priority over the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage of this case, and thus no obligation to accept is required.

The argument is asserted.

In the event of invalidity of a cause for registration, the third party who has an interest in the registration

his/her duty to give consent necessary for the procedure of recovery registration without asking in bad faith (Supreme Court)

The defendant's Republic of Korea, who seized the real estate of this case after the cancellation registration of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, constitutes a third party who has an interest in the registration of this case, shall be deemed to have an obligation under the substantive law to express his/her consent on the above restoration registration. Thus, the defendant's assertion in the Republic of Korea is without merit.

B. As to Defendant DDRDD

The theory of the right to collateral security is established prior to the establishment registration of the right to collateral security before the establishment of the right to collateral security.

As seen earlier, the fact that the auction decision was rendered on the basis of the completion of the registration of the court's decision of auction.

Defendant DDDDDDD, the senior mortgagee, is a third party having an interest in the registration.

shall not be deemed to have been made.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant DDR is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be accepted on the ground of its reason, and the claim against the defendant DDR shall be dismissed on the ground of its reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

January 31, 2018

February 21, 2018

1. On October 31, 2014, the defendant Republic of Korea revoked on May 12, 2015, the OOOOO court's OO registry office of the attached list, and revoked on October 31, 2015, pursuant to Article 83343 of the same registry office, the plaintiff expressed his/her intention of acceptance for the registration of recovery of the establishment of neighboring mortgage that was completed on October 31, 2014.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant DDDD is borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

OOOOOO registry office of the same registry office as of May 12, 2015, which was registered under No. 50188 on May 12, 2015, the order Paragraph 1 of this Article and the defendant DDDDD will express its consent for the registration of the restoration of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring registry that was completed under No. 83343 on October 31, 2014 by the same registry office.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff leased KRW 00 million to BB from July 7, 2014 to October 30, 2014. BB “OO court No. 8343, Oct. 31, 2014 (hereinafter “the creation of a mortgage in this case”). However, BB obtained the above registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff 10 to KRW 50,000,000 from KRW 20,000,000,000, KRW 70,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) were 6,000.

A. As to Defendant Republic of Korea

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

According to the above facts, the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was illegally cancelled against the plaintiff's will, and the defendant's Republic of Korea, who completed a new seizure registration of the real estate of this case after the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was cancelled illegally, has a duty to express his/her consent to the above restoration registration procedure as a third party with an interest in the registration, barring special circumstances

2) Determination as to Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion