Whether a third party is liable for the declaration of consent with respect to the registration of cancellation of provisional registration.

Upon cancellation of the contract for sale, the creditor who seized the contract does not fall under the third party.

Article 108 of the Civil Act. False Declaration of Intention

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant ○○○ performed the procedure for registration of cancellation on January 27, 2006 on the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed by ○○○○○○ on June 3, 2002, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, on the ground of cancellation on January 27, 2006.

B. As to the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to demand ownership transfer under Paragraph (a) above, the defendant Republic of Korea will express his/her consent.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a pre-sale agreement with Defendant ○○ and the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant pre-sale agreement”) and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”) on June 3, 2002 with regard to the instant real estate on the ground of the pre-sale agreement.

B. However, as Defendant ○○○ failed to pay national taxes, the head of ○○ Tax Office under the control of the Republic of Korea attached the right to claim ownership transfer of the instant real estate by Defendant ○○○○ on October 25, 2003, and completed the attachment registration by the head of ○ District Court ○○○○○○ Branch on October 25, 2003.

[Grounds for Recognition: Confession as to Defendant ○○, the fact that there is no dispute over the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○○

The instant provisional registration was lawfully rescinded by the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○○○○○ on January 27, 2006 (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the Defendant ○○○ is obligated to cancel the instant provisional registration to the Plaintiff [self-consumptive judgment (Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(1) The plaintiff asserts that since the contract of this case was cancelled, the defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent on the cancellation registration of provisional registration of this case.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence 6, since the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant ○○○○ on January 27, 2006 ( even if the contract of this case was concluded by a false declaration of intent and thus null and void, as alleged by the defendant's Republic of Korea, it cannot be set up against the defendant's Republic of Korea. Thus, at least as the contract of this case is valid in legal relations with the defendant's Republic of Korea, the plaintiff's right to claim transfer of ownership against the plaintiff ○○○ became retroactively extinguished, so the defendant's assertion against the defendant's Republic of Korea is well-grounded ( even if the defendant's assertion was made, it cannot be asserted that a third party who acquired a new right based on the legal effect arising from the contract of this case, which was rescinded by the plaintiff 10, but it does not constitute a third party's obligee who did not have the right to claim transfer ownership prior to the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.