The right to make a pre-sale agreement with no agreement for the duration of the exercise shall expire at the expiration of the exclusion period, if ten years have elapsed.

Article 564 of the Civil Act provides that if there is no agreement for the duration of the exercise, the right to make a reservation shall expire at the expiration of the exclusion period if ten years have elapsed from the time of establishment of the reservation, and since the person who made the registration of seizure on the right to claim ownership transfer, which is the provisional registration, is a third party having an interest, the right to make a declaration of consent to the registration of cancellation

§ 564. One-way reservation for sale under the Civil Code

Changwon District Court Masan District Court 2014Gadan12549. Cancellation of provisional registration

◇□ 대부 주식회사

Republic of Korea Overseas

2015.09.09

o October 07, 2015

1. To ○○○

A. Defendant △△ ○○-gun, ○○○, 000-00 0,000 square meters in relation to ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, 000 mal., Changwon District Court: (a) implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 10000 on October

B. The Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in bankruptcy of the Defendant Republic of Korea and the bankrupt financial company in bankruptcy shall express its intention of acceptance on each of the above cancellation registrations.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the intervention by the Defendant 3 shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 7, 2005, 2005, ○○ Lease Credit Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Lease Credit”) filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a payment order of KRW 2000,000 against ○○○○○○, etc., and the said court rendered a payment order to jointly and severally pay KRW 0,00,000,000 to ○○ Lease Credit and for delay damages (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on January 3, 2007, and thereafter, the claims under the instant payment order were transferred in sequence and finally transferred to the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, on December 2, 1991, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○, 00-00, and 0,000 square meters, in its future, completed the registration of ownership transfer in its future. On December 27, 1997, on December 27, 1997, ○○ issued the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”).

C. On February 23, 2006, the Defendant Republic of Korea registered seizure on the right to claim ownership transfer, which was the provisional registration of this case, and on December 6, 2010, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in bankruptcy of the Defendant ○○○ Incorporated Finance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) registered seizure on December 6, 2010.

D. ○○○ is currently in excess of the present obligation.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 8, 9, Eul 1, each entry of evidence, and Eul 1, the National Tax Service Commissioner of this Court, the results of each fact-finding to the head of Daegu Metropolitan City, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant △ △△

The right that may become effective as a result of the sale by expressing the other party’s resolution on the completion of the sale in the unilateral promise for the sale as stipulated in Article 564 of the Civil Act (so-called right to the completion of the sale) is a kind of creation right, if the other party has agreed to exercise the right within such period, or within 10 years from the time when the reservation was made, unless such an agreement is reached, and when the said period has lapsed, it shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da44766, 44773, Jul. 28, 1992)

However, according to the above facts, the date of establishment of the instant provisional registration, which is the cause of the instant provisional registration, is December 26, 1997, and the right to conclude the instant provisional registration has ceased to exist due to the lapse of the exclusion period, and as such, the Defendant YU is obliged to perform the instant provisional registration on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking the cancellation of the instant provisional registration by subrogation of ○○○ in insolvent status.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea and the Corporation

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

As seen earlier, the provisional registration of this case should be cancelled. As such, Defendant Republic of Korea and the Corporation that registered the seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was the provisional registration of this case, is a third party with an interest in the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case, the said Defendants are obligated to express their consent to ○○ for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case, barring any special circumstance.

B. Determination as to the assertion by the supplementary intervenor between the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the " supplementary intervenor").

(i)The assertion of extinctive prescription

Defendant Republic of Korea and an assistant intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim against ○○○ has expired by prescription, but where the statute of limitations has expired, a person who may invoke it is limited to a person who directly receives the benefit of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10151, Feb. 12, 2004). The Defendant, the Republic of Korea, and the Corporation cannot be deemed to constitute a person who directly receives the benefit of prescription due to the completion of the statute of limitations on the Plaintiff’s claim against ○○○○, and thus,

Doz. Do. Do.

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the reservation of this case is null and void by means of a false conspiracy, and the period of exclusion of the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation based on the promise of this case null and void shall not exist, and Defendant Republic of Korea shall be protected as a bona fide third party with respect to the false conspiracy, but the evidence submitted by Defendant Republic of Korea alone is insufficient to recognize that the reservation of this case was made by a false conspiracy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

【Provisional Registration for Security】

The supplementary intervenor did not apply the exclusion period if the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for claim security. However, the plaintiff asserted that the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for priority preservation based on the purchase and sale reservation, but as seen earlier, the provisional registration of this case was made on the ground of the trade reservation, and the presumption power of registration is also limited to the grounds for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46256, Feb. 28, 2003). Thus, the supplementary intervenor's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.