If the preceding registration of transfer of ownership is invalidated, the registration of seizure shall also be invalidated;

As long as the preceding registration of transfer of ownership is null and void, the registration of seizure based on it is null and void regardless of good faith or bad faith, so that the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership should be accepted.

Article 214 of the Civil Act, Claim for Removal and Prevention of Disturbance against Article 214

2018da 122731 Requests for cancellation, etc. of ownership transfer registration

Category AA:

Korea

2019.06.12

2019.07.10

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant BB: (a) the transfer of ownership, which was completed on November 10, 2015 by the receipt No. ○○○, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. DefendantCC: (a) the establishment registration of a mortgage completed on October 31, 2016 by the receipt No. ○○○○ on each real property listed in the separate sheet with respect to each real property listed in the separate sheet;

C. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage that was completed on October 13, 2015 by the receipt No. 00, for each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) and (9) of the separate sheet;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

2. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant Republic of Korea has expressed its intent to accept with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on November 10, 2015 by receipt No. ○○, with respect to the Plaintiff as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s ownership of real estate

1) The Plaintiff is a clan that was established in the middle of Si with the white ○○○○○○ 12 years of age as a set of Si, consisting of 9 branch waves of BB,CC, DDA, ECE, EE, FM, GG publicmp, HGmp, II, and JJmp.

2) On August 3, 1990, the Plaintiff filed a registration of preservation of ownership with respect to 12,892 square meters of forest land in ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○-do, and 153 square meters of forest land in 154 square meters of forest land in 154 square meters of 23,008 square meters of forest land (the sum of each of the above forests added to hereinafter referred to as “the forest before

B. Details of the transfer registration of ownership in this case

1) On March 21, 2013, 2013, on the Plaintiff’s name, the 0A entered into a sales contract on forest land before the instant division (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Nonparty KimA, and on April 22, 2013, the 0A made each registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale with the ○○○○ Office for Receiving the Government District Court (hereinafter “YA”).

2) On December 19, 2013, the same 153 square meters of 12,892 square meters of the same Ri, prior to the subdivision, was divided into 153-61, 153-7, 153-1, 678 square meters of the same Ri, 153-2, 694 square meters of the same Ri, 153-3, 814 square meters of the same Ri, 153-4, 774 square meters of the same Ri, 153-5, 853 square meters of the same Ri, 153-61, 081 square meters of the same Ri, and 153-7, 153-7, 81 square meters of the same Ri, and 153-1,818 square meters of the same Ri, respectively, and the forest divided into 154,2308,194 square meters of the same Ri, 2014.

3) As to each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) and (9) of the separate sheet, Defendant DudD completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (35,000,000 won, debtor KimB, and defendant Doddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

4) Defendant BB (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2015 with respect to the instant forest land as the receipt ○○ on November 10, 2015 due to the sale and purchase on October 30, 2015.

5) On October 28, 2016, DefendantCC completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which is the maximum amount of claims KRW 500,000,000,000, debtor assistance and mortgagee, and Defendant CC, based on the contract establishing the instant forest (Yancheon Registry No. 12983, Oct. 31, 2016).

6) Meanwhile, with respect to the instant forest, the Defendant Republic of Korea completed each of the instant seizure registration under ○○○ on the same day as the annual registry office on the grounds of the seizure on January 31, 2017.

C. Results of the relevant criminal judgment

1) Criminal facts

A) On February 20, 2013, 00, 005, 1005, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2007, 2005, 2005, 2000, 3000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00

B) In addition, 00 GaB from the same day, 00 m23,08 m23,000 m23,000 m2 in the temporary column of the same day, ○○○○○○ 72 m3 m2 m2 m2 in the space column, 6 m2 from among the members of the ○○○○ m2 m3 m2 in the space column, '6 presence of the m3m2 in the item column of the resolution, 'real estate sale' in the item column of the resolution: ○○ m3 m2,892 m2, 154 m23,00 m23,00 m23,000 m23,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00 m2.

C) The 00A is "A's regular general meeting resolution of 2013 out of the above date, at the above location, by using computers; 25 February 2013 in the temporary column; 200 '○○○○○ 72 clan office in the space column; 8 members (executive and representative) among the nine members in the column of attendance; 00 '8 members in the total number of the nine members in the column of attendance; 'BA' which is the chairperson of this clan. (on the other hand omitted) is to obtain from the provisions of Article 15 of the Code. (In the first place, eight members (executive and representative) under the provisions of Article 7 are present at the 9th regular general meeting resolution of 200 .0 .0 .0 .0 . 7 . . . . . . 100 . , the president of this clan, who is a member of this clan, were present at the 00 . . 100 ,000 . . ,00 . . . . .

(ii) a conviction on the charge of forging a private document, uttering of a private document, false entry into public electronic records, and uttering of a public electronic record;

A) For the purpose of exercising as above, 00: (a) AA was indicted at this court on the grounds that: (a) one of the Rules of clans, one of the Rules of the Provisional Council, one of the Resolution of the Provisional Council of 2013, and one of the Resolution of the General Assembly of 2013 were forged; (b) a certified judicial scrivener conspired with 0B and 00CC on April 22, 2013; (c) a certified judicial scrivener submitted forged AA Rules of the Provisional Council of Class A; (d) a resolution of the General Council of 2013 among the Class AA; (d) a resolution of the General Council of 2013 among the Class AA; (e) a certified judicial scrivener submitted to the registered public official; and (e) a certified registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of KimA; and (e) a criminal fact was prosecuted by the court of first and sixth months; and (e) a judgment of conviction of 3 years suspended execution (this Court Order 2016Da23434).

B) Meanwhile, while the judgment of the court of first instance appealed against the judgment, the appellate court recognized the criminal facts, such as the fabrication of the above private document, as in the first instance trial, and sentenced the 01 year imprisonment with prison labor and sentenced the 2 year suspended execution (this court 2016No2338) to the 01th court. The 01th court appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on March 30, 2017 (Supreme Court 2017Do1082).

D. Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against KimA

1) The Plaintiff clan filed a lawsuit claiming for the registration of ownership transfer and the cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage against the KimA, BB partnership, Cho, White, etc., by asserting that all the subsequent registration of ownership transfer, etc. should be null and void on the ground that the sales contract of this case was concluded based on forged documents with the Government District Court 2015Da116902, and thus, the subsequent registration of ownership transfer, etc. should be revoked.

2) On April 13, 2017, the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim by the clan, and sentenced KimA et al. to order the implementation of each of the instant forest land registration procedure, the establishment registration of neighboring areas, and the cancellation registration of superficies establishment.

3) As to this, KimA and B made an appeal with the District Court Decision 2017Na205166, but on December 20, 2017, the dismissal judgment was rendered, and on this, KimA et al. appealed with the Supreme Court Decision 2018Da209546, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2018 upon the dismissal of the appeal.

Grounds for Recognition

○ Defendant BB: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

○ Defendant LeeCC: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

○ Defendant DuD, Korea: A without dispute, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (if any)

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Even if a civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in a criminal trial, the facts that have been recognized as the crime of reason for a criminal judgment which became final and conclusive on the same factual basis are valuable evidence. Thus, barring special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a judgment of facts in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, the facts opposed thereto cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997; 2007Da69148, Feb. 14, 2008).

2) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the 00A made a contract of this case between the Plaintiff and the KimA on March 21, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff made a resolution to appoint the 00A as the Plaintiff’s president and to delegate the business of selling the forest land before the instant division to the 00A, respectively, and the Plaintiff forged the Plaintiff’s bylaws, a provisional board of directors resolution, and a regular general meeting resolution, respectively, and on March 21, 2013, entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff on the basis of forged documents, and completed each registration of transfer under the name of the KimA on April 22, 2013 on the ground that each of the above forest land before the instant division was made for sale, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant BB, the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant DD, and each of the above causes for establishment registration under the name of the 2013.

B. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant DuD or Republic of Korea

Defendant DuD, Korea asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot oppose against DuD or Korea, a bona fide third party who trusted the entry of the real estate register.

Inasmuch as the public trust is not recognized in the registration of real estate. In the event that the registration of ownership transfer of real estate is a false registration, the registration of ownership transfer cannot be deemed to have been acquired even if the real estate was purchased in trust and the registration of ownership transfer was completed, and if the registration of ownership transfer of real estate is null and void, the registration of ownership transfer based on the registration is null and void unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72802, Feb. 26, 2009). As long as the registration of ownership transfer in the name of KimA as to the forest before the division of this case is null and void, the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of seizure based on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the above Defendants is null and void regardless of the good faith and bad faith of the above Defendants. Accordingly, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion on different premise is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant BB is obligated to effect the registration of transfer of ownership as of November 10, 2015 with respect to the forest of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership completed by ○○○○ on November 10, 2015, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by ○○○○ on October 31, 2016 with respect to the forest of this case, and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership with respect to the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership completed by ○○ on October 13, 2015 with respect to the forest of this case, as to the real estate listed in paragraphs (1) and (9) of the attached Table among the forest of this case, the Defendant CB bears the duty to express his/her consent with respect to the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was completed by ○○ on November 10, 2015 with respect to the forest of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.