Cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon;

Since the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon is invalid, extinguished, or transferred, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in this case is valid.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 4 through 8, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8-1 through 26, Eul evidence Nos. 11-1 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 12-1 through 6, Eul's testimony No. 12-5, witness Kim ○, witness Kim○-○, and the last ○○○'s testimony.

(1) On April 1, 200, 200, Ggim○ sold to the Plaintiff the building indicated in the [Attachment] owned by it (hereinafter “instant building”) and transferred its ownership on April 27, 200, and the Plaintiff donated the instant building to the succeeding intervenor on February 15, 2006, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed, and transferred its ownership.

(2) The following: (a) on January 15, 1998, Red ○○ operated an age club with the trade name, “○○○○○○○○○○○,” the lease deposit was 350 million won; and (b) the lease period was from January 15, 1998 to January 14, 2001; and (c) from January 17, 1998, the lease term was set as the lease deposit for the first floor entertainment restaurant 1,091 square meters (hereinafter “instant lease area”); and (d) from January 17, 1998.

(3) On July 28, 1998, the Defendant Red○○ requested Kim○○, and received a registration of the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “right to lease”) with the Daegu District Court No. 74207, Jul. 28, 1998 as to the leased portion, 350 million won for the right to lease on a deposit basis, and its duration from Jan. 15, 1998 to Jan. 14, 2001 for the right to lease on a deposit basis. On September 14, 1998, the procedure of voluntary auction of the instant building was initiated on September 14, 1998, the Defendant made a demand for distribution of the said right to lease on a deposit basis to the Auction Court on September 28, 1998.

Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant chonsegwon on December 28, 1998 on the ground of the delinquency of Defendant Hong○○’s tax, and registered attachment under the Daegu District Court’s receipt of January 9, 1999 as the Daegu District Court No. 2338.

The Red ○ closed his business on March 6, 199 on the ground of the business depression.

(4) The plaintiff transferred the ownership of the building of this case on April 27, 200, and on May 2, 2000, from May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2005, the lease term of the whole building of this case was 10 million won for one year from May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2005, from April 1, 2000 to April 30, and from May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2005, 50 million won for four years from May 1, 200 to April 30, 205; 40 million won for one year from May 1, 200 to April 30, 201, from May 1, 200 to 1, 2001 to 40 million won for the lease of value-added tax from May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2007.

(5) Around that time, Ggim○ was handed over the first floor amusement restaurant 1,091.2 square meters (the same as the leased part of this case) under the ground of the instant building, which is the object leased by the Plaintiff, and “○○○○” operated an entertainment drinking house business with its trade name from September 2000.

On the other hand, on December 13, 200, the joint and several surety of the defendant Hong○, a wife Kim ○, agreed that the interest rate of 300 million won shall be 2% per month, and on May 30, 2001, the due date for repayment shall be 20% per month and on May 30, 2001, the repayment of the borrowed money shall be delayed.

(6) However, Kim ○, who decided to increase from May 1, 2001, delayed payment of 400 million won for rent and 100 million won for rent on May 1, 2001, and June 2001, the Plaintiff demanded delivery of the building in accordance with the above claim protocol, and on July 31, 2001, the Plaintiff agreed to order the Plaintiff to surrender the instant building until July 31, 2001 and to waive all rights under the above lease agreement, and pursuant to the agreement, the entire building of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff around September 201.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Judgment on the assertion that the registration of chonsegwon creation is null and void

The succeeding intervenor first asserts that the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case in collusion with Defendant Red○○○ for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and despite the fact that Kim○○ does not have established the right to lease on a deposit basis, the registration of establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis should be cancelled since it is an invalidation of the cause of establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis as if he actually established the right to lease on a deposit basis. However, the successor's assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to believe

B. Determination on the assertion that the claim for the return of security deposit has expired

Next, even if the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is valid, the successor asserts that the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case should be cancelled since the lease on a deposit basis was fully deducted from rent and management expenses, etc. and the refund claims were extinguished. However, the successor's assertion is without merit, since the witness Kim ○○'s testimony is difficult to believe it as it is and there

C. Judgment on the assertion that the right to lease on a deposit basis has been extinguished due to novation or renunciation

On May 2, 200, the succeeding intervenor: (a) Defendant Red○○ entered into a new lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant building under the name of Kim○○, his wife, and thus, concluded a new lease agreement with the Plaintiff on May 2, 200; (b) even if the instant lease agreement was not extinguished due to domestic light, the instant lease agreement was concluded, and the content of the instant lease agreement was modified as the lease agreement without maintaining the identity; (c) Defendant Red○○ renounced renounced the right to lease on July 2, 2001 as well as the instant lease agreement, and accordingly, he asserts that the succeeding intervenor was liable to cancel the registration of the instant lease on a deposit basis.

Therefore, the succeeding intervenor's assertion is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the testimony of the most witness type, which corresponds to the assertion of the succeeding intervenor, as it is difficult to believe as it is, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. On May 2, 2000, the parties who concluded a new lease contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the whole of the building of this case, not Defendant Hong○○, but his wife Kim○, as seen earlier. Thus, the succeeding intervenor's assertion is without merit ( even if the actual party who entered into the lease contract of this case is Defendant Hong○, as alleged by the succeeding intervenor, even if the succeeding intervenor was the defendant Hong○○, the contract of this case was concluded on the lease contract of this case, and at least to recognize that the contents of the lease contract of this case were extinguished in light of the above lease contract of this case, or at least to recognize that the contents of the

D. Judgment on the assertion that the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was transferred

Following the succeeding intervenor, even if the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case has been effectively maintained, if Defendant Red○○ borrowed 300 million won on December 13, 200 and delays it, he decided to transfer all of the rights under the lease agreement on the building of this case including the right to lease on a deposit basis to ○○○○. Defendant Red○○ failed to pay the above borrowed money and thus, Defendant Red○○ transferred the right to lease on a deposit basis pursuant to the above agreement. Thus, Defendant Red○ claimed that the right to lease on a deposit basis of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case cannot be exercised any longer.

Therefore, in the event that Defendant Red ○○ delays the above loan, it is not sufficient to recognize only the record of No. 8 and the witness’s most ○○ testimony with regard to the fact that the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case, which is not a right under the lease contract, is agreed to transfer the above loan to the right of good morals, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the succeeding intervenor’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the succeeding intervenor's claim for cancellation of the registration of establishment of chonsegwon against Defendant Hong○○ is without merit, and the succeeding intervenor's claim against Defendant Republic of Korea also needs to be examined. Thus, all of the succeeding intervenor's claim against the Defendants is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.