[1] In a case where there exists an agreement on the intermediate omission registration, whether the intermediate buyer’s first seller’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership is recognized (negative with qualification)

[2] The case denying a buyer's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the seller on the ground that the intermediate omission registration agreement cannot be readily concluded to have been cancelled or invalidated

[1] The agreement of the intermediate omission registration is that the intermediate buyer does not exercise his/her right to claim for the registration against the first seller and the last buyer shall exercise his/her right to claim for the registration against the first seller. Thus, in the internal relationship between the third parties who agreed on the agreement, at least in accordance with the purport of the agreement, the intermediate buyer cannot claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the first seller before the agreement of the intermediate omission registration is cancelled or the sales contract between the intermediate buyer and the last buyer, which are the premise thereof, is not possible. However, the agreement of the intermediate omission registration is based on the substantive transaction relation, and as a matter of course arises from the fact of the change of substantive right, the intermediate buyer's right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the first seller or the duty of the first seller to claim for the ownership transfer to the former buyer corresponding thereto is not extinguished absolutely and objectively. Thus, even if a special agreement was concluded between three parties to make the intermediate omission registration through the agreement of such intermediate omission registration, if a third party fails to oppose to the first buyer by exercising his/her right to claim the ownership transfer.

[2] The case denying the interim buyer's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the first seller on the ground that the agreement on the intermediate omission registration cannot be readily concluded to have been cancelled or invalidated solely on the ground that, where there was an agreement on the transfer of land within the land transaction report area and the intermediate omission registration was reached, the first seller's first seller's transfer registration was not completed due to the failure to obtain the certificate of completion of report, and the land was dually transferred to a third party

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da18316 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong1992, 505)

Jeong Ho-ho et al. (Attorney Park Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Jong-chul et al. (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Kim In-con et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Of 8, 69,117 square meters of woodland 8,00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. On March 20, 1990, the defendant Lee Jong-ho, and on the portion of 4,250.32/69,117, with respect to the portion of 69,117 shares, the defendant Lee Jong-young and Ansan-si respectively, the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on March 20, 1990 is implemented.

1. Occurrence of obligation to implement the procedures for transfer registration of ownership;

According to the above evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 1990, the plaintiffs were to purchase 5,000 shares out of 49,282.2 shares (No. 14,907 shares) owned by the non-party 1,250,000 shares in the forest of this case from the non-party 27, and the non-party 1,150,000 shares were to purchase 1,250,000 shares for 1,000 shares on the date of the contract, and the remaining 1,00,000 shares were to be delivered as documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on March 29, 190, and the non-party 1,50,000 shares were to be paid to the non-party 2 for redemption of the above shares in the non-party 1's shares under the name of the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3,000 shares in the above forest of this case.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.

The Defendants asserted that the first seller, the intermediate buyer, and the Plaintiffs again purchased the part of the ownership ownership of the said forest from the final buyer so that the ownership transfer registration can be made directly by the final buyer from the said Ansan-jin under an agreement on the intermediate omission registration with the final buyer. Moreover, the Defendants asserted that the intermediate buyer cannot seek implementation of the registration procedure against the Defendants, who succeeded to the status of the first seller, because the final buyer agreed to obtain a favorable judgment in the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the said Ansan-jin-jin-jin-jin-jin-Appellant, and thus, the Defendants cannot seek implementation of the registration procedure against the Defendants who succeeded to the status of the first seller.

Therefore, according to the above facts, the purchaser of the above 1 through 16, Eul's 2, Eul's 1 through 10, and Eul's 1 and 2's 4, and the whole purport of oral proceedings is added to the testimony of the above 1 and Eul's 4, the plaintiffs concluded a sale contract with the above 190, without obtaining the registration of ownership transfer under the above 2's name. From March 2, 1990 to May 9, 190, the above 30 shares purchased from the above 19's 30,000 won were delivered to 260,000 won for the above 20,000 won were delivered to the above 1's 30,000 won, and the above 1's 1's 2's 3's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' 's ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '.' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '''''' ' '''' '''''' ' ' ' ''''.

However, even in cases where an agreement on intermediate omission registration between the first seller of real estate and the second buyer and the third parties of the last buyer entered into an agreement on intermediate omission registration with the purport of making the ownership transfer registration under the name of the last buyer immediately from the last buyer, such agreement alone does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of a sales contract between the last buyer and the first buyer, and the sales contract between the first buyer and the intermediate buyer still exists. However, the agreement on intermediate omission registration is merely an incidental special agreement for convenience only for the method of performing the registration procedure on the premise of the transaction relation between the first seller and the intermediate buyer. In addition, in the case of substantive transfer of rights, the right to claim registration is naturally derived from the fact of the alteration of rights. Thus, notwithstanding the above agreement, the obligation of the first seller to claim ownership transfer registration against the first seller following the alteration of rights of the first buyer or to transfer ownership to the latter buyer corresponding thereto is not extinguished absolutely, objectively, objectively.

However, the above agreement of the intermediate omission registration is that the intermediate buyer does not exercise the right to claim for registration against the first seller and the last buyer shall exercise the right to claim for registration directly against the first seller. Thus, in the internal relationship between the third parties who agreed on such agreement, at least in accordance with the purport of the agreement, the intermediate buyer cannot claim for registration of ownership transfer against the first seller before the agreement of the intermediate omission registration is cancelled or the sales contract between the intermediate buyer and the last buyer which is the premise thereof is cancelled. However, as seen above, the agreement of the intermediate omission registration is based on the substantive transaction relationship, and the right to claim for registration naturally occurs from the fact of the alteration of rights, which is the substantial transaction relation. Thus, even if the special agreement was concluded between the third parties to make the intermediate omission registration through the agreement of the intermediate omission registration, if a third party exercises the right to claim for registration of ownership transfer against the first seller by subrogation, etc., the first seller is obligated to comply with such agreement.

Therefore, in this case, where the above interim omission registration was cancelled between the plaintiffs and the above-mentioned persons, or the sales contract was rescinded between the plaintiffs and the final buyers, the plaintiffs cannot seek again the registration of ownership transfer based on the above sales contract against the defendants, who are the successors of the above-mentioned Maseong-jin who are the parties to the agreement on the interim omission registration of this case. Thus, the defendants' defense pointing this out has merit.

The plaintiffs' right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the plaintiffs, the intermediate purchaser, even though the above Ansan had reached an agreement on the intermediate omission registration with the plaintiffs and the final purchaser, does not terminate the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the above Ansanjin, or the final purchaser's right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership is not extinguished. Even if the final purchaser has obtained the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the execution of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership against the above Ansanjin, the first seller's obligation for the transfer registration of ownership cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled. Meanwhile, in registering the transfer of ownership of land located within the land transaction reporting zone, the seller is obligated to provide the above declaration certificate to the purchaser. As such, since the seller is obligated to provide the above declaration certificate, it is impossible for the final purchaser to obtain the above declaration certificate, and it is impossible to perform the duty to claim for the transfer registration of ownership to the above final purchaser, and if the plaintiffs were to obtain the sale registration in this case, they can obtain the land transaction declaration from the competent government office and make it possible to complete the transfer registration in the above 1707.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the above agreement on the transfer registration of the plaintiffs' ownership was cancelled by the agreement on the intermediate purchaser of the above 40 shares, or that the above agreement on the transfer registration of the above 10 shares was not extinguished by the final purchaser of the above 5 shares. However, if there is an agreement on the intermediate purchaser's transfer registration pursuant to the binding force of the agreement, the intermediate purchaser cannot seek the transfer registration against the first seller. Thus, this part of the allegation is without merit, and if the above agreement on the transfer registration of the above 20 shares was not concluded, it cannot be concluded that the above agreement on the transfer registration of the above 5 shares was not reached by the first purchaser of the above 7 shares without any further agreement on the transfer registration of the above 40 shares, and it cannot be concluded that the above agreement on the transfer registration of the ownership of the above 5 shares was not concluded in the name of the final purchaser of the above 5 shares, and that the above agreement on the transfer registration of the ownership of the above 5 shares was not concluded in the name of the first sale registration.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-hun (Presiding Judge)