Whether a third party's lawsuit may be brought to exclude a compulsory execution on a site of an aggregate building, in cases where the buyer, etc. who has not completed the registration of ownership transfer as to a part of exclusive ownership and a share in a site of an aggregate building is not allowed as it constitutes an abuse of rights (affirmative)

The actual requirements for acquiring ownership by purchasing a section for exclusive use and a share of a site from a constructor of an aggregate building in the form of sale and paying the price in full. However, the buyer who completed only the registration of ownership transfer with respect to share of a section for exclusive use, who has not completed the registration of ownership transfer, has a right to use a site, which is a right that a sectional owner under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings has on the site of a building in order to own a section for exclusive use, and the buyer who takes over or takes over by donation, etc. the section for exclusive use and the share of a site from a buyer again or by transfer from a buyer is also entitled to acquire such right that the initial buyer had become an abuse of rights. Therefore, if compulsory execution with respect to the site of an aggregate building is not permitted as it constitutes abuse of rights, the buyer may file a lawsuit

Article 48(1) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and Article 20 of the same Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da45652, 45669 delivered on November 16, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 39)

Plaintiff 1 and 458 (Attorney Park Young-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Jeong Jin-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 17, 2008

1. The Defendant, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 98Da221058 delivered on May 4, 199, against the non-party 1 corporation, shall not be subject to compulsory execution against each real estate listed in the separate sheet on October 16, 2007.

2. This Court approves the ruling of the suspension of compulsory execution on April 16, 2008 with respect to the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution No. 2008Kaman385.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 11, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 9-1 and 2.

A. On January 8, 1994, for the purpose of implementing a housing construction project, the non-party 1 corporation entered into a construction contract between the non-party 2 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation to construct a new apartment on the land of this case on the real estate of this case on the order of the registration of ownership transfer on each real estate of the real estate listed in the list 1 through 11 of the attached real estate list (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”).

B. On June 12, 1995, the non-party 1 corporation obtained on June 12, 1995 the approval of the housing construction project plan that newly constructs an apartment with 453 households on the ground of the real estate Nos. 1 through 11 of this case (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and obtained the approval of the announcement of the invitation of the residents on June 26, 199

C. Upon completion of the new construction of the apartment of this case around April 199, Nonparty 2 corporation moved into the apartment of this case with the approval of provisional use for the apartment of this case around May 15, 199, but it did not obtain the approval of use until now because it did not perform some matters such as purchase of old site and acceptance of road sites among the conditions for approval of the project plan.

D. The plaintiffs are several buyers who purchased the section for exclusive use and the share of the site of the apartment in this case from the non-party 1 corporation, or who acquired the transfer of the section for exclusive use and the share of the site of this case from the buyer, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the section for exclusive use of the apartment in this case. However, the plaintiffs failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer as to the share of the site of the

E. Article 32-3(3) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003; hereinafter “former Housing Construction Promotion Act”) provides that a business entity shall additionally register the ownership registration that the relevant housing construction site shall not be transferred, subject to establishment of a limited real right, or seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, etc. before applying for approval of the announcement of the announcement of the recruitment of the housing site concerned without the consent of the person who is supplied the relevant housing. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that the relevant housing construction site shall be invalidated in the event it is acquired, seized, seized, or provisionally disposed of after the additional registration date under Paragraph (3). As to the real estate of this case, the additional registration of prohibited matters under Article 32-3(3) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (hereinafter “additional registration”) was completed on May 30, 2003.

F. Meanwhile, on November 5, 1997, Nonparty 3 Co., Ltd. granted a discount loan of KRW 1,336,800,000 to Nonparty 4 on a discount rate of KRW 1,336,80,000, and Nonparty 4 received from Nonparty 4 a promissory note with a face value of KRW 1,000,000 and a face value of KRW 500,00,000 from Nonparty 4.

G. On December 20, 1997, Nonparty 3 filed an application for provisional attachment against Nonparty 1 Co., Ltd. with respect to the real estate of this case owned by Nonparty 1 by Nonparty 97Kadan24274 of this court for provisional attachment against Nonparty 1, holding the claim of KRW 1,36,80,000 against Nonparty 1 as the preserved right, and received a provisional attachment order (hereinafter “the provisional attachment order of this case”) on December 20, 1997 from this court for provisional attachment of the real estate of this case.

H. Accordingly, the non-party 3 corporation filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1 corporation for the claim for the amount of the bill in Seoul Central District Court Decision 98Da221058, May 4, 1999 that the above court ordered the non-party 3 corporation to pay 1,336,80,000 won to the non-party 3 corporation and 6% per annum from November 15, 1997 to September 16, 1998, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 199.

I. On August 18, 2004, the Defendant entered into a consulting contract with Nonparty 5 to the effect that Nonparty 5 would act on behalf of Nonparty 5 corporation for the bid and transfer and takeover of rights of the bonds subject to sale of Nonparty 3.

(j) On August 19, 2004, Nonparty 5 acquired a claim of KRW 4,145,754,406 ( principal 1,814,796,908 + interest 2,330,957,498 + interest 2,330,498) against Nonparty 3’s non-party 4, including the claim based on the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 98Da221058 decided on August 19, 2004 under the above consulting agreement, and transferred the claim of KRW 4,145,754,406 to the Defendant on September 10, 2004 at KRW 13,382,378.

(k) On October 12, 2007, based on the executory exemplification of the above Seoul Central District Court Decision 98Da221058 decided Oct. 12, 2007, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of real estate for the instant title 1 through 11 real estate in this case as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Ma23487, and on October 16, 2007, the Defendant received a decision to commence compulsory auction prior to the provisional seizure from this court to the provisional seizure.

E. The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case on March 31, 2008 and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution against the real estate Nos. 98Da221058 of the above Seoul Central District Court on October 16, 2007, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment No. 2008Kaga385 of this Court, and received a decision to suspend the above compulsory execution until the pronouncement of the judgment in this case on April 16, 2008.

2. Whether compulsory execution is permitted;

A. Whether abuse of rights is abuse of rights

In a case where it is recognized that the execution of the final judgment is remarkably unfair and the execution of the final judgment is clearly acceptable in social life because it is against the definition, such execution shall not be allowed as an abuse of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da4862 delivered on September 12, 1997).

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 11, 갑 제3, 10호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 소외 1 주식회사가 이 사건 아파트를 신축하는 주택건설사업을 진행하다가 부도를 내어 소외 2 주식회사가 위 주택건설사업의 진행을 실질적으로 대행하게 되었고, 그 과정에서 소외 1 주식회사로부터 이 사건 아파트의 전유부분 및 그 대지지분을 분양받은 수분양자들은 소외 2 주식회사의 시공책임을 신뢰하여 분양대금을 성실하게 완납하고 1999. 5. 15.경 임시사용승인에 따라 입주하여 현재까지 9년 이상 거주하여 온 점, ② 소외 3 주식회사는 이 사건 가압류결정을 받은 다음 위 서울중앙지방법원 98가단221058호 로 어음금 청구소송을 제기하여 승소판결을 선고받아 그 판결이 1999. 5. 28. 확정되었음에도 강제집행 등 권리행사를 하지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라, 소외 1 주식회사의 다른 채권자들도 피고가 강제집행을 신청할 때까지 이 사건 아파트의 부지인 이 사건 제1 내지 11부동산에 대하여 강제집행 등을 통한 직접적인 권리행사를 하지 아니하였는데, 그 배경에는 소외 1 주식회사의 채권자들 사이에 분양계약에 따라 시공사에 협력하여 분양대금을 성실하게 완납하고 입주한 수분양자들의 분양권 확보에 관한 신뢰를 보호하여 권리행사를 자제하는 데 대한 묵시적 양해 내지 배려가 형성되어 있다고 볼 여지가 있는 점, ③ 피고는 채권매매 및 중개·자산관리 등을 목적으로 하는 회사로서 이 사건 아파트의 분양 및 입주관계에 대하여 잘 알 수 있는 지위에 있는 점, ④ 그럼에도 피고는 2005. 9. 29. 위 서울중앙지방법원 98가단221058호 판결 의 집행력 있는 정본에 기하여 이 법원 2005타경30153호 로 이 사건 아파트의 일부 전유부분에 대하여 부동산강제경매를 신청하면서 그 신청서에 위 일부 전유부분이 마치 분양되지 아니한 것처럼 허위로 기재한 점, ⑤ 그러자 위 일부 전유부분의 소유자들이 피고를 상대로 이 법원 2006가합221호 로 위 강제집행의 불허를 구하는 제3자이의 청구소송을 제기하여 2006. 4. 20. 패소 판결을 선고받고, 이에 불복하여 서울고등법원 2006나46522호 로 항소를 제기하여, 위 법원이 2007. 2. 16. 위 제1심판결을 취소하고 위 일부 전유부분의 소유자들의 청구를 인용하는 판결을 선고하였으며, 피고가 이에 불복하여 대법원 2007다20396호 로 상고를 제기하였으나, 대법원은 2007. 8. 23. 피고의 위 강제집행이 신의성실의 원칙이나 공평의 관념에 위배되어 허용될 수 없다는 이유로 피고의 상고를 기각하는 판결을 선고하여 위 판결이 확정된 점, ⑥ 위 제3자이의 청구소송에서 패소확정되자, 피고는 비로소 원고들이 이 사건 제1 내지 11부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마치지 못하였음을 기화로 2007. 10. 12. 이 사건 제1 내지 11부동산에 대하여 다시 강제집행을 신청한 점, ⑦ 피고는 2004. 9. 10. 소외 5 주식회사로부터 위 서울중앙지방법원 98가단221058호 판결 에 의한 채권을 포함하여 소외 3 주식회사의 소외 4에 관한 4,145,754,406원(원금 1,814,796,908원 ＋ 이자 2,330,957,498원)의 채권을 불과 13,382,378원에 양수하였는데, 이 법원 2006가합221호 제3자이의 청구소송의 계속중 위 일부 전유부분의 소유자들 일부로부터 위 양수대금 13,382,378원의 6배를 초과하는 85,000,000원을 지급받은 점, ⑧ 이 사건 제1 내지 5, 7 내지 11부동산에 관하여 2003. 5. 30. 이 사건 부기등기가 마쳐짐으로써 이 사건 제1 내지 5, 7 내지 11부동산에 대하여 소외 1 주식회사의 채권자들의 권리행사가 제한되어 원칙적으로 압류를 할 수 없음에도, 소외 3 주식회사가 그 권리행사를 자제해 온 이 사건 가압류결정이 있음을 기화로 피고가 2007. 10. 16. 이 사건 제1 내지 11부동산에 관하여 이 사건 가압류를 본압류로 전이하는 강제경매개시결정을 받은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 이 사건 가압류결정을 이용하여 한 강제집행은 현저히 부당하고 원고들로 하여금 그 집행을 수인하도록 하는 것이 정의에 반함이 명백하여 사회생활상 용인할 수 없다고 봄이 상당하므로 위 강제집행은 권리남용으로서 허용되지 아니한다.

B. Whether the plaintiffs can file a lawsuit against a third party

(1) The actual requirements for acquiring ownership are met by purchasing a section for exclusive use and a share of the site from a constructor of an aggregate building in the form of sale, and paying the price in full, but with respect to share of the site, a person who has completed only the registration of ownership transfer, but has not yet completed the registration of ownership transfer, has the right to possess and use the site of a building for the ownership of a section for exclusive use as the validity of a sales contract, and such right to occupy and use differs from that of a mere right to possess and use, which is the right to use the site, which is the right of a sectional owner under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings to own a section for exclusive use, and a person who has acquired or acquired the right to use the site from a buyer by again purchasing a section for exclusive use and a share of the site from a buyer or by donation, has the right to use the site from a buyer to a section for exclusive use or from a buyer of an apartment, as seen earlier (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da4562, 4569, Nov. 16, 2000).

(2) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s compulsory execution using the provisional seizure order of this case constitutes an abuse of rights. In particular, the purport of Article 32-3 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act is to make the supplementary registration of prohibited matters concerning the housing construction site before approval for the purpose of protecting the persons who receive the housing after approval for the announcement of invitation of residents, and subsequently prohibit the act of disposal concerning the housing construction site unless the persons who receive the housing have consented thereto. Since the effect of change in real rights by the act prohibited from disposal or seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, provisional disposition, etc. is denied, with respect to the housing construction site whose additional registration of prohibited matters has been completed, the provisional seizure order of this case cannot be allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da4649, Nov. 26, 2004). However, the provisional seizure order of this case or provisional seizure order of this case constitutes an abuse of rights since the provisional seizure order of this case 1 to Nov. 20, 197.

(3) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs who have the right to use the site against the real estate Nos. 1 through 11 of this case can set up against the defendant and thus, can bring an objection against the defendant in order to seek the exclusion of the above compulsory execution. Thus, the defendant's compulsory execution against the non-party No. 1 corporation on October 16, 2007 against the above non-party No. 1 corporation based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 98Da221058 delivered on October 16, 2007.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Real Estate: (Omission)

Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)