2014da 14907 Registration of transfer of ownership

A

1. B

2. C

3. Korea;

June 10, 2015

July 17, 2015

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

As to the portion of 400/15,360 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed as of March 9, 2007 by the Daegu District Court Cheongdo Office of Cheongdo Office of 4426, and Defendant C performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership as of the portion of 600/15,360 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of the dispute

A. As to the portion of 14,760/15,360 of the 35,469 square meters of D forest land in Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-do (hereinafter “forest land before division”), the registration for ownership transfer was completed in the future for the remaining 60/15,360 shares in the Plaintiff.

B. After the division on February 25, 2013, forest land before the division was divided into 32,990 meters of forest land D, Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-do (hereinafter “the instant forest”) and 2,479 meters of F forest land (hereinafter “F forest”). Of the instant forest land, the provisional registration (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”) and the attachment registration (hereinafter “instant attachment registration”) were completed with respect to all or part of the shares in 600/15,360 of the instant forest land owned by E as indicated in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

As seen earlier, the registration of provisional registration and seizure was completed with respect to the portion of the forest land in this case owned by the Plaintiff among the forest land in this case, which was owned by the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff divided the said forest land into two lots to correspond to the separate ownership status of each co-owner, and the said forest land was divided into two lots to correspond to the separate ownership status of each co-owner. Since the forest land in this case was divided into the part of the Plaintiff’s sole ownership prior to the division, the share of 15,360/15,360 registered in the name of the Plaintiff among the forest in this case was merely a trust of the title owned by the Plaintiff to E, and therefore, there was no right

Defendant B and C have no right to the forest of this case since they were installed on the forest of F, which is the part exclusively occupied by E among the forest land before partition, and they completed provisional registration for the protection of the said grave, and Defendant B and C has no right to the forest of this case. The registration of seizure of the forest of this case owned by the Plaintiff should be cancelled as it is merely the part with a tax claim against E.

3. Determination

The Plaintiff and E divide the forest land into the current state of sectional ownership in order to resolve the sectional ownership relationship of the forest land before division, but the forest land of this case and the forest land of this case, which are two parcels after division, still remains in co-ownership with the Plaintiff and E. Even if the Plaintiff regards 600/15,360 shares of E in the forest of this case as the shares trusted in trust with E, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the said shares in relation to third party shall be regarded as the shares owned by E, the trustee, and thus, the instant provisional registration of this case and the seizure registration of this case by Defendant B and C based on the tax claim against E, which are based on the provisional registration of this case and the tax claim against E, which are the grounds for invalidation of each of the above registrations, are all valid.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Bo Sung-ho

1) The Plaintiff is seeking consent from the Defendant Republic of Korea upon the registration of cancellation of the seizure registration. However, the Defendant Republic of Korea is seeking consent of the seizure registration.

Since it is a right holder who is responsible for registration of cancellation, it is difficult to view it as a third party interested in registration of cancellation.

The vehicle shall be deemed to have been claimed and shall be corrected as such.

A person shall be appointed.