1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

이 법원이 이 부분에 관하여 설시할 이유는 제1심 판결문 제2면 제6행, 제10행, 제3면 제4행의 각 “대전지방법원 공주지원 등기계”를 “대전지방법원 공주지원”으로, 제2면 제8행의 “윈윈쌍용제이차대부 유한회사”를 “쌍용자동차 주식회사”로, 제2면 제11행의 “윈윈쌍용제이차대부 유한회사는”을 “쌍용자동차 주식회사로부터 원고에 대한 채권을 양수한 윈윈쌍용제이차대부 유한회사는”으로 각 고치는 것 외에는 제1심 판결 이유 해당 부분 기재와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.

The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim is that the defendant paid only the remainder after deducting the amount of 73,920,000 won from the amount of dividends under the claims falsely reported at 80,50,000 won for the purchase price for the forest of this case in the above compulsory auction procedure cannot be deemed to have paid the purchase price in full. Therefore, the above compulsory auction procedure is invalid, and the acquisition of ownership based thereon is invalid.

In addition, the defendant's act of acquiring ownership of the forest of this case using the above compulsory auction procedure as a means of litigation fraud constitutes anti-social legal act, and thus the registration of ownership transfer in the defendant's name is null and void.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the forest of this case to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

First, it is considered that the procedure for compulsory auction and the registration of ownership transfer are invalid because the purchase price is not paid in full.

Article 143(2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that a creditor who is a purchaser may offset the purchase price and the distribution claim, if the creditor is the purchaser, by paying the purchase price in reality and undergoing the procedures for receiving dividends, if the creditor is the purchaser.