Busan District Court 2016Kadan54328 (O. 22, 2017)

The Republic of Korea is a third party having interests in registration.

The Defendants constitute a third party with an interest in the registration with respect to the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration against the Defendants.

Article 24 [Attachment] of the National Tax Collection Act

Busan District Court 2017Na50935 (Ob. 23, 2018)

With respect to each land, on November 24, 2004, the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale

(2) As to each of the land of this case, Defendant CCC shall have jurisdiction over the Busan District Court Central District Court.

The procedures for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 15255 of April 21, 2006 shall be implemented, and 3 recipient

DaDD was received on June 15, 2006 by the same registry office with respect to each of the lands of this case as 22203.

(4) Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○-gu shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of pro-provisional attachment.

The cancellation registration of the seizure registration completed under No. 28402 of the receipt of August 8, 2006 by the same registry office concerning the land.

(5) The defendant Republic of Korea is implementing the vehicle, and 5 June 7, 2007, with respect to each land of this case.

The procedures for the cancellation registration of seizure completed under section 17157 of the receipt shall be followed, and 6. EE, FF

§ 24245 received on August 25, 2008 with respect to the share of 6/10 of each land of this case

The registration of provisional disposition completed and the registration of each land of this case by the same registry office on January 13, 2009

The provisional disposition registration completed by the court and the disposition of collateral security completed by the court No. 720 on January 13, 2009

(7) Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○-gu shall carry out the procedure for registration cancellation of the subdivision registration, and 1

No. 4157 of the receipt on February 23, 2009 with respect to the land listed in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as "land 1").

(8) Defendant GG, FF, and GG are performing the registration procedure for cancellation of the seizure registration completed by the Corporation.

The price, etc. of the right to claim the transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 21, 2009 by the receipt 20255 of the same registry office.

The transfer of ownership completed on July 21, 2009 by receipt No. 20254 on the land of machinery and 2

(9) Defendant HH performs the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration, and Defendant HH performs the same registration office with respect to the land No. 1.

(10) Implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 20900 on July 28, 2009

The registration of ownership transfer is not invalidated (However, in violation of the provisional seizure by Defendant BB)

dispositive act is a creditor of provisional seizure who has received a favorable judgment in the lawsuit on the merits.

(2) If the enforcement procedure is commenced after filing an application for compulsory auction, it shall be void against the plaintiff who is a provisional seizure creditor.

(B) In light of the above, the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 7 can only be written by Defendant BB.

The registration of ownership transfer of this case was completed following the double sale of land, or the ownership of this case

Registration of Real Estate Act or the decision of provisional seizure in this case is deemed null and void.

In short, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, such cancellation of transfer of ownership registration of this case

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant CCC seeking the plaintiff is without merit.

2) As to the claim against Defendant BB

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price against Defendant BB was made to preserve the purchase price claim.

The contents of the provisional attachment decision of this case and the plaintiff after the contract of this case was concluded, to JJ on January 26, 2005.

in light of the fact that a contract to sell each parcel of land again is concluded,

After the sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB, Defendant BB entered into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff

under this case’s land is deemed to have been agreed not to register the transfer of ownership with respect to each land of this case

CCC by omitting the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the plaintiff and the ownership of this case

It is reasonable to view that the previous registration is completed.

Therefore, the implementation of the above contract between the plaintiff and the JJ has not been completed or invalidated.

except in special circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s action against Defendant BB following the instant sales contract.

Since the right to claim for the transfer registration of right has expired, the sale of this case against the defendant BB

The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant BB seeking the registration of transfer of ownership according to the contract is without merit.

3) As to claims against the remaining Defendants other than Defendant CCC and Defendant BB (the Plaintiff is the Defendant)

DD, Defendant ○○○, Defendant Republic of Korea, Defendant EEE, Defendant FF, Defendant ○○○○○, Defendant GG;

AA

Korea

Busan District Court 2016Kadan54328 (O. 22, 2017)

January 26, 2018

February 23, 2018

1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. ① Defendant BB shall be the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “the land”).

III At the same registry office on July 20, 2006, No. 26230 of the receipt of each of the instant land

The registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is implemented.

Provisional seizure registration, seizure registration, provisional seizure registration, provisional disposition, etc. made in each name of FF, GG, III

The defendant is seeking the cancellation of the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage.

For the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant land in the name of CCC

Defendant DD, Defendant ○○-gu, Defendant Republic of Korea, Defendant EEE, Defendant F, who is a third party interested;

F. Declaration of consent given by the F, Defendant ○○○○, Defendant GG, Defendant FF, Defendant HH, and Defendant III

(1) The court below’s decision is the first instance court’s decision (Supreme Court Decision 97Da41103 delivered on November 27, 1998).

[Article 3]

B. In the event that the registration of ownership transfer of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void, as above,

Defendant DD, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void.

The Republic of Korea, defendant EE, defendant FF, defendant FF, defendant ○○○○, defendant GG, defendant FG, defendant GG, and respondent; and

High HH and Defendant III are without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s BB, Defendant CCC, Defendant GG, Defendant FF, Defendant EE, and the Defendant

HH and the part on Defendant III are consistent with this conclusion, and the Plaintiff’s DD, Defendant 0, Defendant 0, Defendant 3

The part which rejected the claim against the Republic of Korea, Defendant EE, Defendant FF, and Defendant ○○○○○○

Now, the Plaintiff, the appellant of the instant case, in which only the Plaintiff appealed, is in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

Since the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be revoked to the disadvantage of the plaintiff, the judgment of the dismissal of the plaintiff cannot be rendered;

The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is all dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is that it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, 1. Basic Facts, and the entry. Therefore, this Court cites it in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid to Defendant BB the purchase price of KRW 120 million, and subsequently intended to register the ownership transfer of each of the instant lands. The Plaintiff requested that the JJ, the father of Defendant CCC, resell the same amount of each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff, and received the instant provisional attachment order in order to preserve the same amount. The JJ did not pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff but completed the instant registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant CCC on April 2, 2006.

Therefore, the ownership transfer registration of this case was made on the grounds of double selling by the intention of JJ, and is null and void since the Registration of Real Estate Act and the decision of provisional seizure of this case have been made in violation of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and thus, Defendant CCC implements the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, and Defendant BB implements the registration procedure for transfer registration of ownership based on the sale contract of this case with respect to each of the land of this case, and the remaining Defendants except Defendant CCC and BB are obliged to implement the registration procedure for provisional seizure, seizure, provisional disposition, provisional disposition, provisional disposition, right to claim ownership transfer registration, and right to claim ownership transfer registration of this case.

B. Determination

1) As to the claim against Defendant CCC

In light of the following circumstances: ① Defendant EE, FF’s claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against Defendant BB, Busan District Court Decision 2007Da15021 decided December 18, 2009, the JJ concluded the sale contract of this case with the Plaintiff on January 26, 2005 and concluded the sale contract of this case with the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (i) Defendant JJ did not appear to have concluded the sale contract of this case with the Plaintiff on the provisional attachment; and (ii) Defendant JJ did not appear to have concluded the sale contract of this case with the Plaintiff on the provisional attachment of BB; and (iii) Defendant JJ did not appear to have concluded the sale contract of this case with each of the Plaintiff on the provisional attachment of this case; and (iv) Defendant JJ did not appear to have concluded the sale contract of this case with the Plaintiff on the provisional attachment of this case on the provisional attachment of this case; and (iv) Defendant JJ did not appear to have concluded the sale contract of this case with the Plaintiff on January 26, 20005.