Whether the registration of seizure of the defendant Republic of Korea based on the cancellation of the sales contract is null and void.

If the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant BB’s name on the instant building was made pursuant to the title trust agreement, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant Republic of Korea who completed the registration of seizure on the instant building, against the invalidity of the above ownership transfer registration.

Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name

2013da 5027575 Registration for Cancellation of Ownership

IsaA

1.B 2.Korea 3. KimCC

May 23, 2014

June 13, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

As to the real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant BB shall implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on September 10, 2009 by the receipt No. 48145, and the Defendant Korea shall cancel the attachment on September 21, 201, and the Defendant KimCC shall cancel the provisional attachment of the Daegu District Court 2012Kadan9335 and the provisional disposition of the 2012Kadan9340.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

"A. On September 10, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a registration of ownership transfer with OOO on the trade price on July 17, 200 of the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) with the Defendant Lee B, who is the Plaintiff, for the real estate listed in the attached list, on September 10, 200; (b) Defendant Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of North India) attached the instant building on September 20, 201 while Defendant B was delinquent with comprehensive income tax, and completed the following registration.

C. On November 2, 2012, Defendant KimCC obtained a provisional attachment order of 2012Kadan9335, the Daegu District Court 2012Kadan9335 with Defendant BB as the debtor, and completed the provisional attachment registration with respect to the instant building on the same day on the grounds of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the revocation of fraudulent act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the registration of seizure of the defendant Republic of Korea, the provisional attachment, and the provisional injunction of the defendant KimCC, based on which the contract was terminated, the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant B should be cancelled due to the cancellation of the contract, the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant B should be cancelled (the plaintiff sought cancellation or cancellation against each registration of the defendant, Republic of Korea, and KimCC, but it is so decided).

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant BB - Whether the Plaintiff can claim the cancellation of the sales contract

First of all, the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s sales contract for the instant building was examined, and ① the Plaintiff first established the instant building in excess of ownership due to the Daegu District Court 2009Na12175, the Daegu District Court 2009Na12175, which filed against the Plaintiff, based on a disguised lawsuit for unjust enrichment claim, which led to the Plaintiff’s establishment of ownership transfer registration, which constitutes a fraudulent act and thus constitutes a fraudulent act and thus, it is alleged that the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled. When the Plaintiff became aware that the obligee’s right of revocation, which served as the grounds for the above, could not be exercised, the Plaintiff changed the cause of claim to cancel the sales contract due to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive the price, ② Defendant B was the Plaintiff’s children, ③ Defendant B was present in this court, and concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff, but it was true that the Plaintiff did not pay any amount including the down payment, and the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff had paid any tax necessary prior to the registration.

“The above title trust agreement becomes null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) and the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and even if the Plaintiff’s filing a claim for the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant BB due to restitution of unjust enrichment, it cannot be asserted that the contract cannot be cancelled according to the invalid title trust agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant BB is groundless.

The main purpose of the Plaintiff’s claim is to cancel various registrations of Defendant Republic of Korea and KimCC, and even if the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building was cancelled due to return of domestic unjust enrichment, the claim against the said Defendants cannot be accepted as follows.

In other words, a title trust agreement is null and void, and any change in real rights to real estate made by the registration made pursuant to a title trust agreement is null and void, but the invalidation is not effective against a third party (Article 4(3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act), and the "third party" here refers to a person who has entered into a new interest with him/her on the basis that the trustee is a real right holder. This includes not only the person who has acquired the real rights, such as ownership or mortgage, but also the provisional seizure creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da56529, Mar. 28, 200). Since the execution creditor under the procedure for disposition on default is not different in cases of the execution creditor under the procedure for disposition on default, unless the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Defendant B related to the building of this case is a registration made pursuant to the title trust agreement, the plaintiff cannot invalidate the above ownership transfer registration against the defendant Republic of Korea and KimCC, which

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.