If the authenticity of the sales contract is suspected, seizure of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer is legitimate.

It is difficult to view that the real sales contract was established because the collateral security was created for the debt security and the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed to substitute it, and the seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer cannot be invalidated due to the cancellation of the sales contract.

Article 140 of the Civil Act: Person cancelled Juristic Act

2014 Gaz. 14193 Gaz. 2014 Gaz.

○ ○

1. Vacant ○○;

2. Korea;

January 28, 2015

February 11, 2015

1. On February 16, 2009, ○○ District Court completed by ○○○○○○○○○○ on February 16, 2009, with regard to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, Defendant hyeast ○○ will implement the procedure for cancellation

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant U20 shall be borne by Defendant U20, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Paragraph (1) and Defendant Republic of Korea shall indicate their intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation as referred to in paragraph (1).

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant hye ○○

(a) Description of the claim;

On August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff sold real estate listed in the separate sheet to Defendant hy○○○○○ in the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer claim as described in paragraph (1) of this Article. However, Defendant hy○○ did not pay the down payment, intermediate payment, and any balance, the Plaintiff’s right to claim transfer of ownership against Defendant hy○○ upon the cancellation of the above sales contract on August 31, 2009.

(b) Applicable provisions;

Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Confession)

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea seized the right to claim ownership transfer on September 9, 2009 against the Plaintiff of Defendant Bh○ on August 13, 2008, and completed the additional registration on September 21, 2009. However, the above contract was cancelled due to Defendant Bh○’s nonperformance of obligation, the above provisional registration should be cancelled, and the Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation registration of the above provisional registration.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant apartment (real estate stated in the attached list) to Defendant hye ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, in a lump sum payment from Defendant hye ○○○○○ on March 31, 2009; and (b) drafted the instant sales contract (Evidence 2) stating that the remainder ○○○○○○○○

2) On August 14, 2008, the following day, on August 14, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of the instant apartment with the maximum debt amount ○○○○○○○○○○○.

3) On February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff revoked the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant apartment from Defendant ○○○○○ on February 16, 2009, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant apartment from △△ Bank on the same day. The Plaintiff completed the provisional registration of the instant apartment from Defendant ○○○○○○ on the same day with the receipt of the instant provisional registration indicated in the text of paragraph (1) of this case on the same day.

4) On August 13, 2008, a written promise to sell and purchase (No. 18-3) attached to the information on completion of the registration and the notice on completion of the registration of the instant provisional registration, stating that “○○○○ was paid to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2008, the purchase price of the instant apartment, out of the purchase price KRW ○○○○○○○, out of the purchase price of the instant apartment.”

5) On September 9, 2009, Defendant 1’s Republic of Korea attached the right to claim ownership transfer against the Plaintiff by Defendant 200, and completed the supplementary registration on September 21, 2009.

6) On June 19, 2012, the Plaintiff, a notary public, obtained a fixed date from the law firm △△ in the instant sales contract. On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the head of the instant tax office ○○○○ Tax Office of the Republic of Korea a confirmation document that “the instant sales contract was rescinded on August 31, 2009.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, Gap evidence Nos. 18-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the above facts of recognition and the allegations of the plaintiff and the defendant, etc. revealed in the arguments of this case, the plaintiff set up the right to collateral security of this case for the purpose of debt security, and completed the provisional registration of this case to substitute it. Thus, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff and the defendant U208 entered into a real sales contract on August 13, 2008 between the plaintiff and the defendant U200, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, thus no claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea on the premise that

1) On August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case to Defendant Y○○○○○, the maximum debt amount, ○○○○○○, the following day of the instant sales contract. As the Plaintiff’s wife Park ○, seeking to borrow a loan from △△ Bank, and created a first priority security right to the above △△ Bank, the Plaintiff’s wife Park ○, which was subject to the cancellation of the instant mortgage, and instead, the Plaintiff completed the instant provisional registration by setting up the sales contract of this case with the Defendant Y○, the purchase price equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the instant mortgage.

2) The content of the instant sales contract does not receive the down payment at all on the contract date, and was paid ○○○○○○ upon March 31, 2009, when seven months have elapsed since the contract date, including the down payment and the intermediate payment. The remainder ○○○○○ also agreed to receive the down payment after five months thereafter, and is distinguishable from the ordinary sales contract.

3) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted in the instant sales contract that the Plaintiff agreed to receive the sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment on March 31, 2009. However, in the preparatory document dated December 17, 2014, Defendant ○○○○○ was asserting that Defendant ○○ was to take over the obligation to return the lease deposit of the instant apartment, and the obligation to the instant apartment to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a stock company with the right to collateral security, on the instant apartment, and to pay the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○ in lieu of the payment of the purchase deposit. The instant sales contract did not state any obligation that Defendant ○○○○○○○○ was to take over the payment of the purchase deposit, which is the most important factor in the sales contract, and there was no obligation to pay the above △○○○○○ bank loans to the said △○○○○○○ on the basis of a promise to pay the purchase deposit.

4) In addition, upon receiving the payment of the remainder of the design service cost, the Plaintiff was promised to borrow ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ from Defendant frequently, and completed the establishment of the instant mortgage on August 14, 2008. The Plaintiff asserted that, on February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff was cancelled the instant mortgage with the Defendant’s consent to obtain the loan from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ under the condition that the Plaintiff had the obligation to return the deposit on the instant apartment, and that, on February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff did not naturally obtain the consent of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the loan from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Therefore, it is an exceptional case where the Plaintiff did not naturally obtain the Plaintiff’s consent to cancelling the instant mortgage.

5) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was rescinded on August 31, 2009, even though Defendant hye ○○ did not pay the down payment and intermediate payment on March 31, 2009, the Plaintiff did not cancel the instant sales contract by failing to pay the remainder of KRW ○○ on August 31, 2009. However, there are no other data, including objective proof of content that the Plaintiff notified Defendant hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye h

6) On September 21, 2009, the Plaintiff and ○○○ had to obtain a fixed date in the instant sales contract, and “the instant sales contract was rescinded on August 31, 2009 by the head of ○○ Tax Office,” and “The instant sales contract was rescinded on August 31, 2009.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hum