Whether it is a third party under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act

The Defendants are not based on the pre-sale agreement, but on the basis of the principal registration which was invalidated based on the provisional registration already invalidated by the cancellation of the pre-sale agreement, and thus, cannot be deemed as a third party in the cancelled pre-sale agreement.

§ 548. Effect of Rescission and duty of restitution

2016 Ghana 5212497 De-registration of ownership transfer, etc.

AA

Aaa Co., Ltd. and four others

June 20, 2017

July 11, 2017

1. As to the building attached to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Aaa Co., Ltd. implements the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on December 30, 201 by the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch of Sungwon District Court Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of District Court (hereinafter “Sccccccccccccc”) and Defendant Bbb, Ccccccccc

B. Defendant ee Credit Union shall implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage completed on May 24, 2011 by the receipt No. 35106 of the same registry office.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Provisional registration and principal registration of BB;

1) BB has the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff. On January 21, 201, BB completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the building on January 21, 201, the registration office of Sungwon District Court, Sungnam Branch Branch of the Sungwon District Court, No. 3722, Jan. 20, 201.

2) Thereafter, around April 5, 2011, BB prepared a certificate of cancellation that the purchase and sale reservation and provisional registration will be cancelled to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, BB completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration No. 26454, Apr. 18, 201, based on such provisional registration.

B. Registration of the Defendants

1) As to the building registered as owned by BB on May 24, 2011, Defendant e-backed Credit Union completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring building as stated in paragraph (1) of the order of the debtor BB, the maximum debt amountxx, and the debtor BB, based on the contract concluded on May 24, 2011.

2) After that, Defendant Aaa Co., Ltd. received the registration of ownership transfer from BB as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, which was based on sale and purchase as of December 30, 201, with respect to the buildings listed in the separate sheet on December 30, 2011. Meanwhile, based on a tax claim with respect to such buildings, Defendant BB transferred the registration of ownership transfer from BB as of July 1, 2014; Defendant CCC CC as of October 15, 2014; Defendant CCCC as of October 15, 2014; and Defendant DC as of February 11079, 2015; and March 12, 2015 as of March 195.

C. The plaintiff's litigation process against BB

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against BB seeking the cancellation of the above provisional registration and the principal registration of BB on the building indicated in the separate sheet, and the judgment was finalized on August 25, 2016. The details of the judgment in the Suwon District Court 201Da32663, the appellate court, after going through the Sungwon District Court 201Gadan27232, Sungwon District Court 201, Sungwon District Court 201Da3263, the appellate court, which was the case of the first instance, should be cancelled due to an agreement for cancellation on April 5, 2011, and the provisional registration in BB, which was completed on January 21, 201, should be cancelled due to an agreement for cancellation on April 18, 201, and the principal registration of BB, which was completed on April 18, 2011, should also be cancelled.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant Aaaa Company: deemed as confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

The remaining Defendants: the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the cause of the claim

Since the registration of transfer of ownership of BB on a building listed in the separate sheet is null and void as it is based on the provisional registration to be early cancelled due to the cancellation of sales reservation, the registration of transfer of ownership of Defendant e-mortgage Credit Cooperatives, the registration of transfer of ownership of Defendant Aaaa Co., Ltd., and the registration of seizure of Defendant bbb, cbb, cccc and d at each time, which was completed based on the registration of transfer of ownership,

Therefore, Defendant Aaaa Co., Ltd. must carry out the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as stated in Section 1 of the order, and Defendant Bbb, Ccccccc and D as interested parties to the registration of cancellation. In addition, Defendant ee-credit Cooperatives must carry out the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as stated in Section 1 of the order to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the assertion by Defendant e-e Credit Union and bb

1) Summary of the argument

The registration under the agreement between the Plaintiff and BB on April 5, 201 was completed prior to the completion of the registration under the agreement on the cancellation of the purchase and sale agreement between the Plaintiff and BB, and the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the mortgage and the seizure of Defendant bB under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act was completed. Therefore, the said Defendants constitute a third party as stipulated in the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the said Defendants’ registration is effective as it is, since the said agreement does

2) Determination

As seen earlier, BB loses the effect of provisional registration due to the cancellation of a pre-sale agreement, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer null and void for the building indicated in the separate sheet. In addition, the said Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of seizure based on the invalid principal registration, and thus, the said Defendants do not constitute a third party in the cancellation of a contract under the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act. In other words, the said Defendants are not based on the pre-sale agreement, but on the basis of the principal registration which became null and void based on the provisional registration already invalidated due to the cancellation of a pre-sale agreement, and thus, cannot be deemed as a third party in the cancelled sales agreement.

Therefore, the above defendants' assertion about this cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.