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 2016Kadan54328 (O. 22, 2017)

The right to collateral security was established.

(D) Defendant DDD, EE

1) Defendant DD, EE

In addition to the cancellation of transfer registration, the judgment ordering the above declaration of intention of acceptance becomes final and conclusive.

In the event of cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer at the request of the plaintiff, each of the above defendants

All of the registrations of provisional seizure, seizure, and provisional disposition made in name shall be cancelled ex officio by the registry officer.

As such, the registration of provisional attachment, attachment, and provisional disposition against the above Defendants was made by the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to view that there is no legal interest in seeking the implementation of each cancellation registration procedure.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the above Defendants is unlawful.

(2) Determination of the claim against Defendant BB

(A) The seller whose double selling of real estate becomes null and void as an anti-social legal act

the buyer’s breach of trust and the buyer’s active participation in the seller’s breach of trust;

Action by which the buyer actively participates is aware that the subject matter of the sale is sold to another person.

It is not sufficient to say that the sale is requested to be made at least with the knowledge of the fact of the sale, and that the sale is made.

The extent to which the case pertains (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da5289, Mar. 11, 1994).

According to the plaintiff's assertion, the transfer registration of ownership of this case is an objection between defendant AA and BB.

It seems to be invalid as it constitutes an anti-social legal act by double sale.

Defendant AA implements the procedure for cancellation of this transfer registration, and Defendant V:

On January 26, 2005, each of the lands of this case is subject to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of agreement.

D. A judgment was rendered with the content of D. D.

On January 26, 2005, there is an obligation to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of agreement.

The Plaintiff paid the price in full after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, but V paid the Plaintiff the instant sales contract

YYB on behalf of the Plaintiff, wishing to purchase each land, YB on behalf of the Plaintiff around that time.

A contract between VV and V to sell each of the instant lands in the amount of KRW 120 million in the price for each of the instant lands;

Defendant BB did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120 million after the conclusion of the contract; however, Defendant BB did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 120 million.

Defendant BB had completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name, and thus, Defendant BB had completed the registration of transfer to the Plaintiff.

10,000,000 won and damages for delay are required to be paid.

However, between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB, the price for each of the instant lands is KRW 120 million.

Since there is a lack of evidence to prove that a sales contract was concluded, the Plaintiff’s assertion is acceptable.

It is difficult to do so.

The part of the above judgment against the defendant AA is confirmed as is, and the part against the defendant BB

Sector appealed by Defendant BB as ○ High Court 2010Na996, but open conciliation on September 3, 2010

At the date, “Defendant BB” is a procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer of ownership in this case to Defendant AA.

(i) a conciliation has been concluded with the same content, etc.

2) The reasons for the instant judgment rendered on October 12, 2011 are as follows: “Plaintiffs” on November 24, 2004.

○ ○

Republic of Korea (Defendant 5)

CCC was owned by it to preserve its claim against BB.

The provisional attachment was made on each land properly.

In addition, the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership according to the contract of this case shall expire ten years.

As a result, it has already been extinguished.

(C) Defendant Republic of Korea, ○○○, △△, and JJ

The Republic of Korea, ○○○ and △△△△△ also have a tax delinquency in BB

With respect to each land, seizure disposition was properly made.

JJ is justified with knowledge that each of the lands of this case is owned by BB.

DD and EE are subject to each of the instant lands in order to preserve their rights.

In the case of this case, 1/4 of each of the lands of this case has been lawfully disposed of and through the judgment related to this case.

The right to the portion was recognized.

2) Defendant EE

The plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration according to the contract of this case has already been filed after the expiration of prescription period.

It also destroyed.

B. Determination

(1) Whether a lawsuit against Defendant CCC, ○○○, Korea, DD, EE, and △△△△ is legitimate

(A) According to Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, where an application for cancellation of registration is filed, the cancellation thereof.

a third party who has an interest in the registration, a written consent thereof or a substitute therefor shall be

a certified copy of the court's judgment which can be asserted shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the court.

A third party's disturbance is a right holder in the registration that is likely to cause damage by making registration of cancellation of the disturbance.

that there is a possibility to sustain the register is a person who is formally recognized by entry in the register, and that person

Whether a third party bears the duty of consent or not, in relation to the right holder of the cancellation registration, the third party.

It is determined by whether there is a duty under substantive law to give consent (Supreme Court Decision 2007.

4. 27. See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da43753 Decided 27.

(B) As to each of the instant lands, Defendant CCC, ○○-gu, Korea, DD, EE;

Registration of provisional seizure, seizure, and provisional disposition made in each name of the △△△△ Office shall be the transfer of ownership of this case

The above defendants are subject to the cancellation of the transfer of ownership of this case. The above defendants are subject to the cancellation of the transfer of ownership

a third party who has an interest in such registration.

If so, the plaintiff is about defendant CCC, ○○○, Korea, DD, EE, and △△△△.

(2) If the title transfer registration of this case is cancelled, the title transfer registration of this case can only be cancelled, and

AA or YY AB or accuracy as a breach of trust with respect to the instant sales contract

The contract was entered into between the System and the System to sell each of the instant lands twice, and the buyer

Defendant BB or V also entered into a sales contract by actively participating in the above breach of trust

As to whether or not there are health units, Gap evidence 8, 9, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1

1. Facts of recognition;

AA entered into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff on November 24, 2004, and V V

On January 26, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase each of the instant land.

VV is the transfer of ownership of each of the instant lands from Defendant AA and the City of Arts around December 20, 2005.

Upon receipt of documents, such as a certificate of seal impression necessary for registration, to Defendant BB on each land of this case.

The registration of ownership transfer of this case is made in the name of Defendant BB on April 21, 2006 in the name of Defendant BB.

The period was ever.

2. Judgment on the claim against Defendant BB

According to the above facts, each of the instant lands was made in the name of Defendant BBB with respect to each of the instant lands

The Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name is the registration of transfer of ownership by title trust.

is invalid in violation of law.

And V purchase and sale of each of the instant land from the Plaintiff on January 26, 2005

The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff under the contract shall be omitted, as between the plaintiff and the defendant AA.

The significance seems to have been achieved.

Accordingly, according to Defendant DD and EE’s subrogation claim, Defendant BB had to Defendant AA. The instant case

The procedures for registration cancellation of transfer registration shall be implemented, and the defendant AA shall carry out the procedures for registration cancellation of transfer registration to V in each of the instant land

Party A’s evidence No. 7, in light of the following circumstances known in light of the overall purport of the pleadings:

The statement alone is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the cost is not sufficient.

It is difficult to accept the above argument intentionally.

1) Defendant DD and EE are the method of ○○○ for Defendant AA, BB, and a trade-related class.

The plaintiff filed a claim such as cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the first 2007Gahap15021, Dec. 18, 2009

From the above court for the following reasons, “Defendant BB” is against Defendant AA:

AA entered into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, and VV entered into the instant sales contract on January 26, 2005

From this point of view, I explained that each of the lands of this case was purchased.

3) As to Defendant BB, Seoul District Court Msan Branch 2014Gahap3214

Although filing a lawsuit for a claim for the purchase price, on August 28, 2015, the following reasons from the above court:

(1) The judgment against the party against which the claim is dismissed was rendered, which became final and conclusive as it is.

(B) The plaintiff violated the validity of the provisional seizure decision of this case.

I seem to have argued to the effect that it is invalid.

However, the provisional attachment ruling alone prohibits the owner from disposing of the immovables.

Since the plaintiff's above assertion is invalid, it cannot be accepted.

(3) Determination of the claim against Defendant AA

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s sales contract of this case to V on January 26, 2005 after the sales contract of this case

In concluding a contract to sell each of the instant lands again, each of the instant lands pursuant to the instant sales contract

Since there was an agreement to omit the transfer registration, the above transaction system between the Plaintiff and VV thereafter.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the performance of a contract has not been completed or has been invalidated, each such contract shall

Under each contract, the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership to Defendant AA according to the sales contract of this case

It is reasonable to view that the claim was extinguished.

Even if it is not so, the seller of real estate sells the property to another person in selling it.

A third party notwithstanding the obligation to sell and register the transfer of ownership to such third party;

Unless special circumstances exist, the seller shall transfer the registration of transfer to another person.

It is reasonable to deem that the obligation to transfer ownership to another person is in an impossible condition.

Defendant after the instant sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1416, Mar. 22, 1983).

In the name of BB, the transfer of ownership of this case was made under the sales contract of this case.

AA’s obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff is impossible unless there are special circumstances.

must be deemed to have taken place.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant AA.

(4) Determination of claims against Defendant FF, GG, HH, III, and JJ

As above, insofar as the ownership transfer registration of this case cannot be deemed null and void, the ownership of this case

Based on the registration of transfer of jurisdiction, each name of Defendant FF, GG, HH, III, JJ

Provisional registration of ownership transfer claim, ownership transfer registration, and establishment registration of the mortgage of this case

Since all of the claims against the above Defendants cannot be deemed null and void, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to accept them.

(c)

3. Conclusion

Defendant CCC, ○○○, Korea, DD, EE, and △△△△ among the instant lawsuits

Sector dismissed by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s Defendant AA, BB, F, GG, HH, III, and JJ

The claim against the defendant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2017.05.25

2, 2017.06

1. Of the instant lawsuits, Defendant CCC, ○○ Metropolitan City ○○, Korea, DD, EE, and ○○○○ among the instant lawsuits also dismiss the part regarding the △△△△ Gu.

2. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant AA, BB, FF, GG, HH, III, and J are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(8) On November 24, 2004, Defendant AA shall perform the procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership for the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 20. 20, 200, 2B shall perform the procedures for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer as of April 21, 2006, 1525, and 3 Defendant CCC shall perform the procedures for the registration of cancellation of provisional attachment as of June 15, 2006, 2203, 4. 20, 207, 207, 205, 207, 207, 30, 207, 205, 207, 207, 205, 207, 207, 201, 207, 205, 207, 307, 205, 207, 201.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1.

A. On November 24, 2004, YY (the former name: the full name: the Plaintiff’s father) on behalf of the Plaintiff (the former name: the full name; the Plaintiff’s father) entered into a contract with Defendant AA to purchase each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in the name of Defendant AA in the name of ownership between Defendant AA and Defendant AA (the father of Defendant AA) on behalf of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”).

B. On April 12, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an application against Defendant A to the ○○ District Court for provisional attachment of each of the instant lands with the claim amounting to KRW 120 million as to each of the instant lands as 205Kadan11666, and on April 12, 2005, it received a provisional attachment decision (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment decision”) from the above court. On April 21, 2006, Defendant AA completed the ownership transfer registration for each of the instant lands (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).

D. As to each of the instant lands thereafter:

(1) Defendant CCC (former name: WWW) filed an application for provisional attachment against Defendant BB at the ○○ District Court 2006Kadan11774 with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 20 million, and on June 14, 2006, the provisional attachment order was issued by the above court on June 15, 2006 (registered on June 15, 2006);

(2) On July 20, 2006, Defendant JJ obtained on July 20, 2006 the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 600 million from Defendant BB;

(3) On August 7, 2006, Defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○ (hereinafter “○○○”) issued a seizure disposition against Defendant BB on August 7, 2006 (registration on August 8, 2006);

(4) Defendant Republic of Korea issued a seizure disposition against Defendant BB on June 5, 2007 (registration on June 7, 2007),

(5) Defendant DDD and EE shall:

(A) On August 7, 2008, ○○ High Court 2007Ra284 on August 25, 2008, issued a provisional disposition order with the same content as the provisional disposition order with respect to each of 6/10 shares as the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration by subrogation as the right to be preserved (registration August 25, 2008);

(B) ○○ District Court 2008Kadan24623 filed an application for provisional disposition with respect to a claim claiming the closure of the registration of ownership transfer as a preserved right due to the revocation of fraudulent act as ○○ District Court 208Kadan24623, and on January 8, 2009, the above court received the provisional disposition order with the same content (as of January 13, 20

(C) Defendant JJ filed an application with ○○○○ District Court 2008Kadan24623 for provisional injunction on the instant right to collateral security, and received a provisional injunction order from the above court on January 8, 2009 (registration January 13, 2009).

(6) On February 19, 2009, Defendant BB issued a seizure order against Defendant BB regarding the land No. 1 (registration February 23, 2009), Defendant FF, GG, and HH (7)

(A) On July 21, 2009, Defendant BB obtained on July 21, 2009 the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership based on the reservation of trade on the same date with respect to each one/3 of the first land among them;

(B) On July 21, 2009, each one-third share of land No. 2 was registered on the ground of sale on the same date; and

(8) Defendant III received the registration of ownership transfer for land No. 1 from Defendant BB on July 28, 2009 due to sale on July 24, 2009.

(9) Defendant DDD and EE filed a lawsuit against V, the father of Defendant BB, ○○ District Court 201Kahap2480, which filed a claim for ownership transfer registration with respect to V, and V, from the above court on October 12, 201, with Defendant DD and EE on each of the instant land.

On December 16, 2005, the judgment of the court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case") stating that "the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the agreement shall be implemented." It seems that it is finalized as it is. (10) Defendant J filed a lawsuit against V and Defendant BB under the ○○ District Court 201Gahap14278, and Defendant JJ jointly and severally held from the above court on May 9, 2013, 'VVVV and Defendant Jong Chang-il will be 40 million won and its related amount, from February 29, 2012 to Defendant JJ, and from December 15, 201 to December 15, 2011 to pay 20% interest per annum." This seems to have become final and conclusive.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the price of KRW 120 million to Defendant AA in full, and then intended to register the ownership transfer of each of the instant lands. Defendant BB’s father, asked the Plaintiff to resell each of the instant lands at the same price, and received the instant provisional attachment order in order to preserve the same amount without reservation of the registration of ownership transfer. The Plaintiff completed the instant provisional attachment registration in the name of Defendant BBB on April 2, 2006 without paying the purchase price to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the ownership transfer registration of this case is null and void because it is based on the double selling by the intention of VV. Thus, Defendant BB shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case, and Defendant AA shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the land of this case based on the sale contract of this case, and the remaining Defendants shall perform the procedure for the registration of provisional seizure, seizure, provisional disposition, provisional disposition, ownership transfer claim, provisional registration, ownership transfer registration, and mortgage creation registration of this case based on the registration of ownership transfer of this case.

(2) The Defendants

(A) As Defendant AAV entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on January 26, 2005 to purchase each of the instant land again, Defendant AAV agreed to omit the transfer registration of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name under the instant sales contract, the transfer registration of ownership in this case is valid.

(B) Defendant CCC