Since a pre-sale agreement is still null and void, there is no obligation to consent to the Defendants to cancel provisional registration.

Even though the promise of this case cannot be asserted against a third party acting in good faith through the invalidation of false conspiracy, since the promise of this case is still null and void, it cannot be asserted against the defendants on the premise that the promise of this case is valid, and it cannot be said that the defendant has a duty to consent to the cancellation of provisional registration.

2013Gahap8248 Indication of consent intention on the registration of cancellation of provisional registration

005 05 105

National Bank, Inc. and one other

May 7, 2013

June 14, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

The National Bank of Korea, Co., Ltd., has expressed its intention to accept the following cancellation registration to the Plaintiff with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet, the Defendant Republic of Korea has expressed its intention to accept the following cancellation registration to the Plaintiff: the Suwon District Court, Dongcheon District Court, Dongcheon Branch Office, 655 of January 6, 2005

1. Basic facts

In full view of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, and the whole purport of each entry and pleading, and ① the plaintiff is subject to compulsory execution against the real estate in the separate sheet on January 5, 2005, the plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against the right of ownership transfer registration in accordance with the separate sheet on January 5, 2005, and filed a false registration of the right of ownership transfer registration in the early BB due to the purchase and sale reservation on January 5, 2005, and ② the defendant citizen bank filed an application for provisional seizure against the right of ownership transfer registration in accordance with the purchase and sale reservation of this case (the entire real estate of this case) and filed an application for provisional seizure against the plaintiff on October 31, 2007, and the defendant also filed an application for provisional seizure against the right of ownership transfer registration in accordance with the provisional sheet on which he owns, and the plaintiff asserted that the provisional registration of this case was cancelled on April 24, 2008 and that the provisional registration decision of this case was cancelled on April 19, 208.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the provisional registration of this case is invalid as it was completed by false conspiracy, and that the defendants have a duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case since the purchase and sale reservation of this case was cancelled. The plaintiff is a person who has a new legal interest based on false conspiracy, and thus has a new legal interest (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041 Decided May 28, 2004) and the plaintiff cannot oppose the defendants who correspond to the third party as invalid (the defendants cannot assert and prove that they are malicious, as well as there is no possibility that the defendants are maliciously third party). Meanwhile, a bona fide third party cannot oppose the invalidation of the false conspiracy merely because the bona fide third party cannot assert the invalidity of the false indication, and it cannot be asserted that the defendant's declaration of intention or the provisional attachment is invalid between the parties who conspired to trade in this case and the third party.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.