logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016. 12. 21. 선고 2016가단204179 판결
가등기말소청구[국승]
Title

Request for cancellation of provisional registration

Summary

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed due to the absence of subrogation claim.

Related statutes

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Cases

Daejeon District Court Decision 2016-Annex-204179 ( December 21, 2016)

No provisional registration shall be deemed a registration of invalidation which has been completed without any cause.

3) The expiration of the exclusion period and the existence of subrogation claims

A) Meanwhile, in the unilateral promise for sale, the other party to the pre-sale expressed his/her intent to complete the pre-sale agreement.

right to enter into force of a transaction, i.e., the right to enter into a contract, as a kind of right to enter into a contract.

If the parties have agreed on the duration of such exercise, it shall be within that duration, provided that no such agreement is made.

within 10 years from the time of the establishment of the reservation, and at the expiration of that period,

the right to complete the reservation shall expire upon the expiration of the exclusion period (Supreme Court Decision 2000 delivered on January 10, 2003).

C. According to the above facts, the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for priority preservation.

10 years from the date of the reservation for sale, unless there is any agreement that the exercise period of the right to full resolution, which is the cause thereof;

Since it is apparent that it has been excessive, the defendant's right to complete the purchase and sale reservation has ceased to exist over the limitation period.

- 5-

It will be said that it will be the case.

B) However, in the case of a real estate title trust, the truster is in a relationship with the trustee.

the real ownership of the real property without registration, but the trustee may pay the real ownership of the property;

It can not be argued that the truster has the ownership of the real estate in his/her own (or by law).

See Supreme Court Decision 96Da47494 delivered on July 25, 1997, etc.). However, the plaintiff's claim of this case is nominal.

Under the premise that the consignee AA is an owner of each of the instant lands, the Plaintiff, the obligee, is the trustee.

AA’s title truster’s right to claim for cancellation of the provisional registration of this case against the Defendant

As seen above, AAA, a title trustee, is against the defendant who is the title truster.

In relation to the ownership of each land of this case, the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case cannot be claimed by asserting ownership.

J. The plaintiff exercising the claim of AA on behalf of the defendant as in the case of AA.

No one may seek cancellation of the provisional registration of this case.1

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the existence of the subrogation claim asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion

Plaintiff

Korea

Defendant

Jinsong-dong Macong-si

Conclusion of Pleadings

on December 23, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

November 11, 2016

1. Basic facts

A. As to the land listed in [Attachment 1] No. 5 of the list of real estate on May 9, 1985, attached on November 20, 1986

As to the land listed in No. 2 of the list of real estate (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above land" in this case)

Each AAA has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

B. As to each land of this case, the defendant received on February 3, 1987 from the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon Registry.

On February 2, 1987, No. 3816, Feb. 2, 1987, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the ground of a pre-sale

The reservation is "pre-contract for the sale of this case", and the above provisional registration is completed.

C. AA was delinquent in paying capital gains tax of KRW 181,613,980, and the Plaintiff’s attachment disposition on January 14, 1998

according to the Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's Office of Registration on January 24, 1998 each land of this case as received on January 24, 1998

The registration of seizure (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") made the plaintiff as the right holder has been completed.

Part The Plaintiff’s total transfer income tax and global income tax against AA prior to the filing date of the instant lawsuit

Tax claims of KRW 319,920,740 are held.

D. Meanwhile, AA is currently insolvent due to excess of its debts.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), and all pleadings.

Purport

- 3-

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The reservation of this case was made after the lapse of the exclusion period of ten years from February 2, 1987, which was the date of its establishment.

Since the right to conclude a pre-sale contract has expired, the provisional registration of this case must be cancelled. The plaintiff must cancel the provisional registration of this case.

The procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case in subrogation of AA, who is insolvent, as a taxation right holder.

A. On the other hand, clans, etc. are sought even if each of the lands of this case was title trust.

In external relationship with a third party in title trust, the title trustee is the owner of the real estate in title trust.

As such, the title truster, the defendant, as the execution creditor, shall be deemed to be the plaintiff as the third party.

such ownership may not be asserted solely by reason of the fact that the purchase and sale agreement between the defendant and AA was made.

Even if this conspiracy is false representation, the creditor can oppose the plaintiff who is a bona fide third party.

shall not be effective.

2) Defendant

Each land of this case shall be the real estate held by the defendant clan in title trust to AA and shall be subject to AA.

Preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to termination of title trust by avoiding the compulsory execution by the right holder;

The period of exclusion of the right of reservation shall apply to the provisional registration of this case by the defendant clan for the purpose of making the provisional registration.

Therefore, the provisional registration of this case cannot be cancelled.

B. Determination

1) Whether title trust is held

The whole purport of the pleading shall be stated in each description of the evidence of Nos. 1 to 8 (including each number).

In addition, each of the lands of this case is the father's title trust made by the defendant to AA which is the clan of this case.

- 4-

It is reasonable to view it as mountain.

2) Whether the provisional registration of this case is null and void

in the case of title trust of the ownership of a real estate held by a clan, such real estate under title trust;

In preparation for a case where a title trustee arbitrarily disposes of, the clan itself under an agreement with the title trustee.

in the name of a person other than a clan or in the name of a person to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer;

If a provisional registration has been made, the provisional registration is a pre-sale promise to sell and purchase the cause of the provisional registration.

D. Even if no such reservation was made between clans and the title trustee, such reservation has been made;

A clan and a title trustee’s agreement to make a provisional registration is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

A provisional registration cannot be made, and the provisional registration is null and void because there was no actual pre-sale promise.

(1) The person entitled to the provisional registration may at any time request the implementation of the principal registration based on the provisional registration.

See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15170, 15187 Decided September 6, 2002, see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da15187, Sept. 6, 2002)

Reasons

shall not be effective.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(i)

arrow