beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. In principle, the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that registration of the primary cause of a claim shall be applied jointly by the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration, but Article 29 provides that registration under the judgment shall be applied solely by the person entitled to registration or the person liable for registration who has won the registration. The case where the person liable for registration, other than the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration who has won the registration, can independently apply for registration in addition to the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration who has won the registration, may be exempted from liability due to deposit, etc., but the person liable for registration may not use this method in relation to the claims and obligations related to the registration, but where the person liable for registration is likely to suffer disadvantages in social life or legal law due to the fact that the registration which he/she is not entitled to receive
(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da60708 delivered on February 9, 2001). According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including paper numbers) and all pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged:
① On January 2, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the share of this case to C on December 30, 2005.
② On July 7, 2008, the Plaintiff was awarded a bid for the instant land through a compulsory auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the said land under Article 77759, which was accepted by the Suwon District Court.
③ However, the Defendant received a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit against C (U.S. District Court Decision 2008Gahap1559), and the Plaintiff (Court Decision 201Gahap1313) on the ground that there was no legitimate general meeting resolution with regard to the sale of shares in the instant land. Each of the above decisions was rendered on December 11, 2010 (C) and August 2014.