Whether there is an obligation to express an intention of acceptance in the registration of cancellation of the right to claim transfer.

There is no evidence to repay the amount borrowed at the time of provisional registration, that there is no obligation to express his/her consent to the cancellation registration of provisional registration with respect to the attachment of the right to claim ownership transfer.

Article 389 of the Civil Act: Compulsory Performance

1. As to the portion of 17,446/25,861 out of the forest land of ○○○○○○○○○-gu, ○○○○○○○○○-si, Defendant Park Jong-○ (hereinafter “○○○○○”)’s registry office ○○○○○○, which completed on April 18, 2005, the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the right to claim a transfer registration is implemented

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Park ○ is assessed against the Plaintiff, while the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively.

Paragraph (1) and the defendant's Republic of Korea shall express their intention of acceptance in relation to the registration of cancellation of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer under paragraph (1).

1. Basic facts

A. On April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the “provisional registration of this case”) on the real estate as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter referred to as “the real estate of this case”) with Defendant Gamb○ on the same day.

B. The Defendant Republic of Korea attached the right to claim ownership transfer of the provisional registration of this case on July 11, 2005 and March 15, 2006, based on the national tax in arrears by Defendant Gamb○○○.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap 5, Eul 2, purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. Claim against Defendant Park ○-○

The Plaintiff, on April 18, 2005, borrowed KRW 15 million from Defendant GambO and completed the provisional registration of this case to Defendant GambO, paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 20 million of principal and interest on June 29, 2005. As such, Defendant GambO claimed that the Plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case. As such, Defendant GambO did not deal with the Plaintiff’s assertion at the pleading of this case, it is reasonable to deem that he led to the confession of the above assertion pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, Defendant GambO is liable to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

On April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15 million from Defendant Gamb○, and completed the provisional registration of this case to Defendant Gamb○○ upon full reimbursement of KRW 20 million with the principal and interest on June 29, 2005. As such, the Defendant Republic of Korea, which seized the right to claim ownership transfer of the provisional registration of this case, has a duty to express his/her consent on the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case.

Therefore, with respect to whether the amount borrowed by the Plaintiff, upon receiving the provisional registration of this case, was KRW 15 million, on the ground that the Plaintiff had made the provisional registration of this case, the Plaintiff was unable to submit all financial data. ② According to the Plaintiff’s entry in the lease ledger submitted on January 1, 2005, the officially announced value per square meter is KRW 18,300,00. Thus, the real estate of this case for which the provisional registration of this case was established is deemed to have exceeded KRW 300,00 ( KRW 319,261,80 + KRW 18,300,000 + KRW 17,446,00) by borrowing KRW 15,00,000 from Defendant Park Poe-○, but it is difficult for the Plaintiff to acknowledge that the provisional registration of this case was made at the complaint of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount was KRW 15,000,000,000,000.

Next, on June 29, 2005, before the Republic of Korea seizures the right to claim ownership transfer of the provisional registration of this case, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to obtain the above certificate of personal seal impression (A 3) on June 30, 2005 with a total sum of 20 million won of principal and interest paid to Defendant Park Jae-young, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s proof is insufficient as to whether the funds borrowed upon the provisional registration of this case was 15 million won or not. ② The Plaintiff and Defendant Park Jong-○ was unable to submit all financial data that the Plaintiff and Defendant Park Jong-○ were fully repaid the borrowed funds, and ③ the Plaintiff and Defendant Park Jong-○ issued his personal seal impression (A 3) on June 30, 2005 to cancel the provisional registration of this case. However, in light of the fact that Defendant Park Jong-○ was not issued with a different form of a 50-dimensional seal impression affixed to the Plaintiff Park Jae-○, the Plaintiff and Defendant Park Jong-○, 200-type 204.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park ○ is reasonable, and the claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.