spring that the Defendants and AA do not have the obligation to transfer ownership due to the conciliation with the Defendants

The Defendants prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit and the AAA’s conciliation have lost effect on the instant contract. As such, the Defendants did not bear the obligation to transfer ownership to AA on each of the instant land.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 404 of the Civil Act

Suwon District Court 2014Gadan204733 ( October 24, 2015)

EE in a prior suit, the AAE shall be liable for damages arising from the sale of no more than 53 copies of this title.

In addition, since the sale balance, etc. under the contract of this case was not paid, the transfer lawsuit of this case

The contract of this case was rescinded by service of the complaint, and accordingly EE has been rescinded by the complaint to AA.

(2) In the case of this case, the claim for confirmation that the Corporation is not obligated to transfer the ownership

In all proceedings, the contract of this case is not effective, and the EE shall have all remaining offices for AA.

The Gu (including all claims related to the money paid to Gim○) waives the Gu, and AA has waived the case.

All other claims against EE with respect to No. 53 of this case, including each land

(3) The instant contract is concluded by EE to the extent that it is delegated by the Defendants.

As such, Defendant CCC and DD have entered into the status of seller, and the mediation period for the above transfer lawsuit

As such, the conciliation of this case was effective against the Defendants, since it was participating in the conciliation proceeding.

the Defendants are deemed to have the effect of the instant contract concluded by the Plaintiff, EE and AA.

under the premise that such registration shall be made directly by AA with respect to the Defendants

In full view of the above, since the contract of this case has lost its validity, the defendants have lost its validity.

There seems to be no obligation to transfer ownership of each land of this case.

The plaintiff's request is without merit.

2) The lower court examined the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

First of all, the mediation of this case conducted after the provisional disposition of this case is prohibited from the above provisional disposition.

Since it is contrary to the validity of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s prohibition of disposition cannot be effective.

disposition shall be made by the Defendants to preserve the claims for ownership transfer registration against the Defendants of AA. EE

the purpose of preventing any other person from disposing of such property, such as transfer of ownership;

Therefore, the conciliation of this case is not against the validity of the above provisional disposition. Therefore, the plaintiff is not against the validity.

This part of the argument is not accepted.

Then, after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case by exercising the subrogation right of the creditor, the plaintiff

As to the effect of the instant contract as null and void through the instant conciliation,

This does not oppose the plaintiff in violation of Article 405 of the Civil Code, and the mediation of this case shall be EE

The purpose of this article is to argue that it is invalid because it is a false conspiracy with a view to grouping cells.

B. On December 6, 2013, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the instant lawsuit was already filed.

J. Of the content of the conciliation of this case, the part that “the contract of this case has no effect” is no more than one another.

It appears to mean that the contract of this case is not subject to rights and obligations under the contract of this case.

As a result, it is difficult to deem the contract of this case null and void only upon the conclusion of mediation.

In addition, after being notified of the exercise of subrogation right by AA, through the conciliation of this case

It does not seem that the conciliation of this case constitutes a case of disposing of rights. Otherwise, a false conspiracy statement

There is no evidence to see that it is null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.

Korea

BB and 5

February 10, 2015

March 24, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Defendant BB, on December 17, 2006 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2006, due to sale and purchase on December 17, 2006, Defendant CCC shall implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case in addition to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3”), as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”), on December 17, 2006.

1. Basic facts

A. As of March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff has a national tax claim of KRW 2,489,525,920, including the additional dues, to AA.

B. The Defendants were co-owners of forest land No. 53,793 square meters in Tae-dong, Tae-dong, Tae-dong (hereinafter “the instant land No. 53 square meters”). around December 2005, EE granted the right of representation with respect to the sale of the instant real estate to EE. On December 17, 2006, EE sold the instant land No. 53 square meters to AA in KRW 1.5 billion (hereinafter “the instant contract”).

C. Each real estate of this case was divided into 53 pages of this case, and Defendant BB owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, Defendant CCC owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and Defendant DD owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3.

D. On December 6, 2013, EE filed a lawsuit against AA to confirm that there is no obligation to file for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant land under a contract entered into between EE and AA on February 17, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer lawsuit”). In the said lawsuit, EE, AAA, Defendant CCC, and DD (each of the instant mediation intervenors) was concluded on June 16, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant mediation”). DD (hereinafter referred to as “instant mediation”), as to whether Chsan 53 was located in the instant case:

(a) The sales contract concluded between EE and AA on February 17, 2006 shall have no effect.

(b) Ascertainment that land trading consulting agreements entered into between EE and AA have been terminated on May 27, 2014.

(c) Any of the obligations under this Section (a) or (b), including restitution, shall be deemed to have been fulfilled. 2. Defendant CCC shall:

A. As to each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, consent to use of the road shall be granted to the purchaser of the instant land No. 53.

B. Some of the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 shall be transferred to a person who purchases 467-65 in △△-dong, △△-dong, to a statement of accounts for insufficient sales area.

3. With respect to the land listed in the annexed sheet No. 3, Defendant DDR gives consent to the use of the road to the purchaser of the forest No. 53 forest of this case.

4. EE waives any remainder of claims against A (including all claims related to the money paid to GOO) and AA waives all the remainder of claims against the Plaintiff in relation to No. 53 of this case.

E. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional disposition on the prohibition of disposal (2014Kadan60260), and completed the provisional disposition registration on the same day (hereinafter referred to as "provisional disposition of this case") from this court on the right to claim ownership transfer registration under the subrogation right of this case on April 3, 2014. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute any dispute, Gap Nos. 1-10, 13-17, 23-27, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. The plaintiff's ground of claim

AA paid the full purchase amount under the instant contract. Accordingly, the ownership of the land No. 53 was transferred to AA.

On the other hand, AA divided the instant land No. 53 into 34 lots, including each of the instant real estate, and sold 20 lots to a third party without completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of AA, and with respect to each of the instant real estate, AA did not complete the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the future of AA to avoid the disposition on default of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to AA to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the real estate in the names of the Defendants among each of the instant real estate.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, a creditor of AA, filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant land with the Defendants in subrogation of the insolvent AA in accordance with the instant contract.

B. Determination

1) In other words, the following circumstances known in light of the facts admitted under paragraph 1 and each evidence: