[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and seven others (Law Firm Daegu, Attorneys Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 29, 2008 (Defendant 2 through July 7, 2008)

December 24, 2008 (Defendant 1, 8.)

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

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

The Plaintiff

A. Defendant 1 (Co-Defendant 1 of the lower court’s judgment) implements the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the agreement dated August 7, 2002 (see preparatory document dated December 1, 2008) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto;

B. Defendant 2 (Defendant 1 of the Supreme Court’s judgment), Defendant 3 (Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court’s judgment), Defendant 4 (Defendant 3 of the Supreme Court’s judgment), Defendant 5 (Defendant 4 of the Supreme Court’s judgment), Defendant 6 (Defendant 5 of the Supreme Court’s judgment), and Defendant 7 (Defendant 6 of the Supreme Court’s judgment) perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to each portion of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5123 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5123 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 207, and the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on January 24, 2007.

C. Defendant 8 (Co-Defendant 1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the first instance) shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 35084 on May 26, 2005 with respect to shares of 15/17 among each real estate listed in No. 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the attached Table 1.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or evidence of subparagraph 1 through 9 (the evidence of subparagraph 1 through 4 of subparagraph 27 is the same as the evidence of subparagraph 1-6 through 9 of subparagraph 1), evidence of subparagraph 2-1 (the evidence of subparagraph 2, evidence of subparagraph 2, evidence of subparagraph 3, evidence of subparagraph 4-1 through 8, evidence of subparagraph 5, evidence of subparagraph 7-1, 2, evidence of subparagraph 19-1, 2, evidence of subparagraph 27, evidence of subparagraph 27, evidence of subparagraph 27, evidence of subparagraph 3, evidence of subparagraph 27, evidence of subparagraph 29, evidence of subparagraph 34, evidence of subparagraph 1-5, evidence of subparagraph 1-2, evidence of subparagraph 2-3, evidence of subparagraph 1, evidence of subparagraph 1-2, evidence of subparagraph 1-3, evidence of subparagraph 3-1, evidence of subparagraph 2-1, evidence of subparagraph 2, evidence of subparagraph 3-1, evidence of the whole.

A. Nonparty 2 owned the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). On June 26, 1998, he died with Defendant 2, his wife, and his children, Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and Nonparty 1. The Defendants and Nonparty 1 inherited the said real estate in accordance with each statutory inheritance portion (Defendant 2: 3/17, the remaining Defendants, and Nonparty 1, respectively).

B. However, Defendant 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (hereinafter “Defendant 2, etc.”) delivered documents relating to the waiver of his/her property inheritance to Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation with respect to shares of 13/17 out of each of the instant real estate by using the above documents on March 25, 199.

C. Meanwhile, on June 18, 2001, Nonparty 1, both of the Plaintiff, filed a complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff on June 18, 2001, stating that “Defendant 1, on the part of the Plaintiff, voluntarily sold to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation the land number of 146 square meters in the same Ri (number 3 omitted), 3,414 square meters, 741 square meters, 741 square meters in the same Ri (number 2 omitted), 1,299 square meters in the same Ri (number 3 omitted), 146 square meters in the same Ri (number 4 omitted), and filed a complaint on June 18, 201 (number 5 omitted), stating that “The name of the Plaintiff was completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name, 5 square meters in the same Ri (number 6 omitted),” and in the process, Defendant 1 prepared a statement on August 7, 2001, stating that “The land was returned to the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff, etc.

D. The non-party 1 received the above written statement from the defendant 1, and revoked the complaint against the defendant 1. The defendant 1 was subject to a disposition of no suspicion from the above prosecutor's office on August 27, 2001. While the defendant 1 failed to comply with the above written statement, the non-party 1 was subject to a provisional attachment decision on February 24, 2003 as to the shares (15/17, respectively) of the defendant 1 among each of the real estate in this case, and completed the entry registration on February 25, 2003, the defendant 1 failed to perform the above written statement on August 7, 200, the non-party 1 was subject to the disposition of no suspicion from the above prosecutor's office on August 27, 2001. The non-party 1 omitted the lot number of each of the real estate in this case (the share number of the defendant 1, which is the creditor of the deceased non-party 2 and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and (6) the previous lot number omitted number omitted) 15.

E. On December 31, 2002, the Plaintiff asserted that there was an agreement on December 31, 2002 against Defendant 1 on the payment in substitutes (the Plaintiff asserted that the payment in substitutes was made not later than December 31, 2002 in each of the instant notes) and completed the entry registration upon receiving a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of real estate regarding Defendant 1’s shares (each of the instant real estates 15/17), among each of the instant real estates on March 8, 2003, the right to claim the ownership transfer registration based on the ownership transfer registration based on the payment in substitutes (the Plaintiff asserted that there was an agreement on December 31, 2002 as to the performance of payment in substitutes).

F. Meanwhile, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, through Nonparty 1, who was an attorney, claimed that “Defendant 1 had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of his voluntary donation by means of the filing of the documents on the renunciation of inheritance,” and sought cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer on March 25, 199 on each of the instant real estate in the name of Defendant 1, which was caused by the invalidation of the cause due to the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-ro 2004Ga149,9387 (merger). Defendant 1 was decided by the above court on April 15, 2005 to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of the restoration of real name by shares of Defendant 2, etc., and the decision became final and conclusive around that time.

G. However, Nonparty 1 asked the Plaintiff to offer a collateral for the purpose of securing the obligation against Defendant 8. On May 26, 2005, the Plaintiff had Defendant 1 implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration to Defendant 8 with respect to each of the 15/17 shares registered in the name of Defendant 1, among the real estate listed in attached Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, instead of performing the content of the instant letter.

H. In addition, on December 14, 2005, Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the sale on December 1, 2005 (only the sale on the above date in its form, and the actual ground for registration was stated only in the sale on the above date, and the provisional disposal on the real estate as of March 6, 2003, the provisional disposal on the real estate as of March 6, 2003, the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the ground of the invalidity of the cause, and the claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of payment on December 31, 2002).

I. Meanwhile, on January 24, 2007, Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 obtained an execution clause for succession to 13/15 shares of each of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and Defendant 8 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each share (as to the real estate listed in [Attachment 1 List 1 List 1 List 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5], Article 5124, Article 5124, Article 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Daegu District Court receipt of Kimcheon-Support for the Daegu District Court, and Article 5123 of the same Support as to each of the real estate listed in [Attachment 1 List 1 List 6, 7, 8, and 9]

2. Judgment on the grounds of claim

A. As to the claim against Defendant 1

(1) On August 7, 2002, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate of this case on the ground of an agreement under each of the agreements dated August 7, 2002.

B. Request for the registration of ownership transfer of the remaining real estate except for the real estate listed in attached Table 1 Schedule 5 among the instant real estate

According to the above facts, it is recognized that Defendant 1 agreed on the ownership transfer of the remaining real estate in this case, except for the real estate listed in paragraph (5) of the attached Table No. 5, through the letter of this case, to the Plaintiff through the letter of this case, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant 1 to transfer the ownership transfer to Defendant 8 in lieu of the execution of the contents of this case concerning Defendant 1's portion among the real estate listed in No. 6, No. 7,8, and No. 9 of the attached Table No. 1 for the purpose of securing the obligation against Defendant 8, and Defendant 1 completed the procedure for the ownership transfer registration under Defendant 8 on May 26, 2005, as to each of the real estate registered in his name among the real estate listed in No. 6, No. 7,8, and 9 of the attached Table No. 1, No. 14285, Dec. 14, 2005.

Therefore, Defendant 1's obligation to register the transfer of each of the instant notes against the Plaintiff was discharged and terminated. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim for this part based on each of the instant notes is without merit.

[Attachment I] Claim for ownership transfer registration of real estate listed in [Attachment I] section 5

According to the above facts, since Defendant 1 does not include the real estate listed in paragraph (5) of the attached Table on the object agreed to register the ownership transfer through the letter of this case to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning real estate listed in paragraph (5) of the attached Table on the ground of the agreement under

As to this, the plaintiff sought the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the sales contract dated July 30, 2006 (Evidence A No. 19-1). Thus, the plaintiff, through the statement of the above preparatory document at the sixth pleadings, requested the judicial scrivener procedure for ownership transfer registration on the real estate stated in Schedule No. 1 to No. 4 attached hereto to the plaintiff's representative. The judicial scrivener requested the registration of ownership transfer to "the sale of real estate dated December 1, 2005," and the non-party 1 did not state the above provisional disposition's right on July 30, 2006 to the above provisional disposition No. 1, and it was merely a separate claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the above provisional disposition No. 3 was not a separate claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the non-party 1 did not state the above provisional disposition's right on July 30, 2006 (Evidence No. 19-1). The plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration on each of the above real estate was not a separate claim for ownership transfer registration.

B. As to claims against the remaining Defendants

(1) As to the remaining Defendants, on January 24, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained an execution clause by succession in accordance with the above reconciliation recommendation and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the real estate in this case. Defendant 8 completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to Defendant 1 (each 15/17), among the real estate listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9 on May 26, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void as it goes against the contents of the provisional disposition of prohibition of real estate disposal as against the Daegu District Court Kim Jong-cheon Branch on March 6, 2003.

D. As to claims against Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

First, with respect to the claim for the real estate stated in the Attachment No. 5 of the Attached Table No. 1, it does not include the real estate stated in the above Paragraph 5 in the letter of this case between the plaintiff and defendant 1, and the plaintiff received the above provisional disposition order based on the letter of this case as seen earlier, the plaintiff is deemed to have no substantive right with respect to the real estate stated in the above Paragraph 5. Thus, even if the provisional disposition order is issued at the request of the non-right holder, even if the provisional disposition registration was completed, the effect of the provisional disposition can not be asserted against the debtor or the third party, and the person who completed the registration of transfer of ownership after the provisional disposition registration also can assert that the ownership was effectively acquired by the right holder (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da38760, Oct. 8, 199, etc.). Thus, with respect to the real estate stated in Paragraph 5, the plaintiff cannot seek the cancellation of transfer of ownership on the ground that it is against the above defendants' provisional disposition against the above defendants.

Furthermore, with respect to the claim for the remaining real estate except for the real estate mentioned in paragraph (5) above, even after the registration of prohibition on disposal of real estate was entered effective, the status of the provisional disposition creditor alone does not have the right to claim cancellation of the registration of disposal made after the provisional disposition, and the creditor of the provisional disposition can later file a claim for cancellation of the registration in violation of the contents of the provisional disposition completed after the provisional disposition is registered (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da12349 delivered on February 14, 192, etc.). Thus, unless there is any evidence supporting that the plaintiff can file a claim for cancellation of the registration in violation of the provisional disposition registered after the provisional disposition is registered (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da12349 delivered on February 14, 192, etc.), the plaintiff who is the debtor against the defendant 1 cannot file a claim for cancellation of the registration with the defendant 1 as seen above, and it is not yet sufficient for the plaintiff as the creditor of the provisional disposition to seek cancellation of the registration after the registration of the provisional disposition.

【Defendant 8’s Claim

As the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed on May 26, 2005 with respect to each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 against Defendant 8, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that Defendant 1 completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 with respect to each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 at the Plaintiff’s request and completed the ownership transfer registration with Defendant 8 with respect to each of the 15/17 shares registered in his own name in lieu of the implementation of the contents of the instant statement. Therefore, unless there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the above ownership transfer registration in Defendant 8’s name is invalid, the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the above ownership transfer registration in Defendant 8 on the ground that it was based on an agreement under each of the instant agreements, the right to be preserved for the above provisional disposition against Defendant 1, and simply completed the ownership transfer registration with Defendant 8. This part of the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Han-il