logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2009. 02. 16. 선고 2008가합128 판결
가처분취소 결정에 따른 말소등기가 원인무효라는 주장의 당부[국승]
Title

The legitimacy of the assertion that the registration of cancellation following the decision to revoke the revocation is void;

Summary

Even if the creditor of provisional disposition has received a final judgment in favor of the lawsuit on the merits, the effect of the act of disposal in violation of the prohibition of provisional disposition can be denied, and as a matter of course, the effect of the act of disposal in violation of the prohibition of disposition does not lose its effect, so the registration of cancellation

The decision

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Purport of claim

The Defendants expressed their consent to the registration of the provisional disposition entry with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff ○○ Construction on March 20, 2007 with respect to the registration of the restoration of the provisional disposition entry with respect to the above registry office, which was cancelled on March 20, 2007 by the Changwon District Court Dao District Court Dao Office 12355 on March 10, 2002, the above registry office No. 1046 on January 10, 2002, and the ownership No. 33058/531 on January 10, 2005. The Defendants expressed their consent to the registration of the restoration of the provisional disposition entry with respect to the real estate stated in paragraph (1) on March 20, 207 with respect to the Plaintiff ○○ metal Co.,,, Ltd., the above registry office, whose registration was cancelled on March 22, 2002.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The following facts are deemed to have been led by the Defendants pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Park ○ and Kim ○○, and each of the descriptions described in subparagraphs A through 9 (including each number) between the Plaintiff, Defendant Kim Jin-jin, Park ○, and Ma○, and the Republic of Korea.

A. Defendant Kimjin-jin was an implementer of ○○○○-ri ○-ri ○-9 branch line reclamation project at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-9 branch line reclamation project. The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○○○○”) changed its trade name from the first ○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. to the current trade name, and changed to the current trade name; hereinafter “○○○○○”). At the time of Defendant Kimjin-jin’s implementation of the above project, Defendant Kimjin-jin established a collateral security right on the land, etc. of ○○○○○○-23, Seoul Guarantee Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○”).

B. Around July 5, 1999, Plaintiff ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 5341m2 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”) agreed to take over 1,400m2 among the above business after completion of the above business as a consideration for the above provision of collateral with Defendant Kim Jong-jin, which is a land secured for the recompense of development outlay, and subsequently, agreed to transfer 1,00m2 among them to Plaintiff ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○”).

C. Meanwhile, on January 3, 2002, on the instant land before the instant partition, registration of ownership was completed with 1/3 shares in Defendant Kim Jin-jin, Seo-jin, and Jeju-do on January 3, 2002, and on January 8, 2002, on the grounds of the renunciation of shares in Seo-ri and Jeju-do, the entire share transfer registration was completed to Defendant Kim Jin-jin.

D. On January 10, 2002, in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the 1,000 square meters of the land prior to the transfer as above, Plaintiff ○○ case received a provisional injunction registration for the above shares of 3305,78/5341 shares of the land prior to the transfer on January 10, 202 by the Changwon District Court, Changwon District Court, Seoul District Court 2002Kahap7, and received a provisional injunction registration for the above shares on January 10, 2002, under the receipt of the provisional injunction registration office No. 1046 on January 10, 202, and Plaintiff ○○○ metal received the provisional injunction registration for the above shares of 4628/5341 shares of the above land on March 21, 202 as the provisional injunction registration for the above shares on March 29, 202 (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional injunction registration for the above shares").

E. After July 11, 2003, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Kim Jin agreed to take over approximately 800 of the land before the instant partition, Plaintiff ○○ Construction, and approximately 600 of approximately 600, respectively.

F. Accordingly, the plaintiff ○○ case filed a lawsuit against the defendant Kim Jong-jin on December 4, 2003 by filing a claim for ownership transfer registration with the Changwon District Court Branch Branch of Changwon District Court 2003Kahap1386, and the defendant Kim Jong-jin decided on July 11, 2003 that "the plaintiff ○○ case shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the transfer agreement on July 11, 2003 with respect to the share of 264.63/5341 out of the land before the instant partition," and the above judgment was finalized on December 27, 2003.

G. In addition, the plaintiff ○○ Metal filed a lawsuit against the defendant Kim Jin by the Ulsan District Court 2003Kadan10857, and the defendant Kim J on July 14, 2003 filed a decision to recommend a compromise with the plaintiff ○○ Metal on July 5, 199 that "the plaintiff ○○ Metal shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of a transfer agreement on July 5, 1999" with respect to the share of 600/1,40 of the land before the division, and the above decision was finalized on August 2, 2003, and revised on December 30, 2003 with "60/140 shares" as the share of "48/5341 shares".

H. Meanwhile, on May 15, 2002, with respect to the portion of the land prior to the instant subdivision, Defendant Park Jong-chul registered the right to demand partial transfer of ownership on the basis of the sale promise on May 15, 2002, but completed the ownership transfer registration on May 10, 2007. The Defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration on the said land on May 25, 2002, and the provisional attachment registration on June 3, 2002, respectively, on August 20, 2002, and on August 20, 368/5341 of the said land on August 20, 202, Defendant Ma-○ filed the provisional attachment registration on March 13, 2003.

I. According to the above judgment and the decision of recommending reconciliation, Plaintiff ○○ case filed a transfer registration for shares on the ground of an agreement for transfer as of December 29, 2003 with the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 49620, Jul. 11, 2003; Plaintiff ○○ Metal, Inc., made a transfer registration for shares on the ground of an agreement for transfer as of December 31, 2003, with the receipt of No. 50415, Jul. 5, 199, respectively, on the ground of an agreement for transfer as of December 31, 2003, with the receipt of No. 50415, Dec. 31, 2003; however, even after the entry registration of the instant provisional disposition was made, Defendant ○○ et al. did not file an application for cancellation of the provisional registration.

(j) Since then, the Plaintiff ○○ Metal transferred the share transfer registration based on the sale on December 31, 2003 as the receipt of No. 50416, Dec. 20, 2003, with respect to the share of 0.6/5341 of the above share, to the Defendant ○○ Metal, on the part of 1983/5341 of its share, to the Defendant ○○○ Metal, and the said registration office completed the share transfer registration based on the donation as of January 28, 2004 as of January 18, 2004, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, on January 28, 2004, the land prior to the instant partition was divided into 00 ○○○○○○, 1219 large 3357.4 square meters and 1219-1 large 1219-6 square meters, respectively.

(l) After that, Defendant Kim Jong-jin received a decision that "the provisional disposition of this case was revoked on January 10, 2002 and March 21, 2002" against the plaintiffs by filing an application for provisional disposition of this case with the Changwon District Court Branch Branch of Changwon District Court No. 2007Kahap29 and 2007Kahap30, due to changes in circumstances, the court of the first instance on February 14, 2007 and February 15, 2007." Accordingly, the above decision was finalized on March 20, 207 because the plaintiffs did not file an appeal, and the registration of provisional disposition of this case was revoked on March 20, 207.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Since the Plaintiffs received a favorable judgment and a decision of recommending a compromise against Defendant Kim Jin on the part exceeding the above shares among the instant provisional disposition decision, the provisional disposition can only be revoked, and as to the said shares, the provisional disposition may not be revoked.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiffs did not apply for the cancellation of provisional registration, etc. in the names of the Defendants, which was made subordinate to the registration of provisional disposition in this case, while making a transfer registration in accordance with the above winning judgment and the decision of recommending reconciliation, and thus, it was necessary to maintain the registration of provisional disposition in this case for

(3) Therefore, the part corresponding to the above shares of the plaintiffs in the registration of cancellation of provisional disposition entry registration of this case revoked by the commission of the above court pursuant to the decision to revoke the provisional disposition order of this case in the case of provisional disposition revocation due to changes in circumstances in the situation of the court of Changwon District Court, Changwon District Court 2007Kahap29, 30, the court of Changwon District. Therefore, the plaintiffs still have the right as a provisional disposition right holder corresponding to the above shares, notwithstanding

(4) Therefore, the defendants who had completed ownership transfer registration and provisional registration with respect to the land prior to the partition at the time of cancellation of the provisional disposition entry registration in this case shall be deemed to fall under a third party with an interest in the registration in entrusting the restoration registration of the above provisional disposition entry registration. Thus, the defendants have a duty to accept the procedure for the above provisional disposition entry registration with the court's commission against the plaintiffs.

B. Determination

(1) Therefore, in a case where a provisional disposition is registered, and the creditor obtains a favorable judgment in favor of the case or obtains a compromise, mediation, etc. in the lawsuit on the merits of the case, the creditor may deny the validity of the provisional disposition to the extent of the right to be preserved, and the attachment, etc. is also included in the case where the debtor raises a concern for a transfer by such provisional disposition, a security right creation, etc. after the provisional disposition is registered.

(2) However, even if the creditor of provisional disposition received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the lawsuit on the merits, the effect of the act of disposal in violation of the prohibition of provisional disposition can be denied, and it does not automatically lose its effect.

Therefore, where the right subject to provisional disposition is the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer, in order to register the right subject to provisional disposition, an application for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of a third party shall be filed at the same time when the registration of ownership transfer is filed by a final and conclusive judgment, etc., and an application for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration shall be filed with respect to the registration after provisional registration, seizure and provisional disposition is made simultaneously with an application for ownership transfer registration or ex post facto cancellation.

(3) In addition, even if a creditor of provisional disposition won a lawsuit on the merits, if the creditor of provisional disposition does not execute the lawsuit without any special circumstances, the provisional disposition order may be revoked on the ground that there is a change in circumstances, which is the reason why the preservation of the right to be preserved ceases to exist as it is, and the provisional disposition order may not be revoked in the case where the creditor of provisional disposition does not execute the lawsuit on the merits.

(4) In this case, even if the plaintiffs received a favorable judgment and a decision to recommend a compromise against the defendant Kim Jin on the transfer of some shares after completing the provisional disposition of this case, but did not file an application for the cancellation of provisional registration in the name of the defendants since the above provisional disposition of this case, the court can revoke the provisional disposition of this case on the ground of change of circumstances. If the plaintiffs did not appeal against the above provisional disposition of this case, the above provisional disposition of this case is not reasonable, or even if there is a prior priority issue between the transfer of shares in the plaintiffs' name and the principal registration based on provisional registration of this case, the registration of cancellation of provisional disposition of this case, which was made by the court pursuant to the above provisional disposition of this case, cannot be said to be null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion seeking acceptance declaration on the registration of restoration of the above cancellation registration on the premise that the cancellation registration of the provisional disposition registration of this case is null and void is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow