logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.19 2014나53325
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the use of this case by the court of first instance as to this case are as follows: " July 1, 2003" in Chapter 3, Chapter 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as " July 1, 2013"; and Chapter 4, Paragraph 11 shall be read as "the real estate established by joint security with the instant collateral security and the real estate value or the security value thereof shall not be known"; therefore, Chapter 4, Paragraph 16, Paragraph 2, is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the contents set forth in the following paragraph 2, and it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that even though the application of the Act on Security of Provisional Registration is excluded in each of the provisional registrations of this case, as long as the nature of each of the provisional registrations of this case is a provisional registration for security, in order to enable ownership of each of the real estate of this case to be finally reverted by exercising a security right, it must undergo an expression of intent of attribution settlement as a procedure for settlement of accounts. Since the Plaintiff did not notify of attribution settlement, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.

However, in the case of a provisional registration for security to which the Provisional Registration Security Act is not applicable, the obligee can complete the principal registration based on provisional registration and complete the settlement procedure after delivery of the object, and the obligor cannot oppose the obligee's claim for transfer of ownership on the ground that the obligor did not undergo the settlement procedure. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

However, even if the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer is implemented, it is presumed that the registration of ownership transfer is a weak meaning of transfer for security because it does not change to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer is also an object of security unless there are special circumstances.

arrow