It constitutes a fraudulent act to waive the statute of limitations interest in which the principal registration right on the basis of the registration of the right to claim ownership is extinguished.

In spite of the expiration of the exclusion period of the right to claim a transfer of ownership on the basis of the registration, it constitutes a fraudulent act to waive the statute of limitations interest and make the principal registration.

§ 406. Revocation of fraudulent act

2016 Ghana 205938 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

1. Korea;

1. The lecture;

October 26, 2016

November 23, 2016

1. (a) Gangwon-do (**************) filed with the Defendant on October 15, 2015 the registration of the principal branch court of Chuncheon District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2, each right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed on December 3, 1998 by the receipt of No. 52211 on December 3, 1998, including the Daegu District Court, the Daegu District Court, and the Daegu District Court, with respect to each real estate listed in the attached Tables 3, 198, declared that the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed on December 3, 1998 by receipt No. 29622 on December 3, 198

B. The Defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 42422 of the receipt on December 9, 2015 with respect to the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 and Section 2 of the attached Table 1, the registration of the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court, the registration of the ownership transfer completed under No. 81290 on December 7, 2015, and the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 List 3, the Daegu District Court, within the Daegu District Court, within the territory of the Republic of Korea.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed on December 3, 1998 with respect to the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 and Section 2 of the attached Table 1, and the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed on December 3, 1998 with respect to the real estate listed in the Annex 1 List 1 and Section 2, and the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed on December 3, 1998 with respect to the property listed in the Annex 1 List 3.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The main text is as follows (The entry in the written complaint is somewhat different from the main text, but it is reasonable to see that it is the same as the main text in its purport).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty B was liable to the Plaintiff for national tax liability of KRW 64,60,250 (as of January 4, 2016) in the aggregate of the value-added taxes and additional taxes as described in the attached Table 2, which were incurred between December 31, 1997 and June 30, 201.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 3, 1998 with respect to each real estate listed in [Attachment 1 List 1 and 1 List 2, which is owned by B, the registration of ownership transfer claim was completed on December 3, 1998 by the Defendant on the ground of a pre-contract for sale and purchase as of December 2, 1998. On December 7, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer claim was completed on the ground of sale and purchase as of October 15, 2015 and the registration was completed on the ground of each of the above 81290s. ② On December 3, 1998, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the real estate listed in [Attachment 1 List 1] with respect to the Defendant on December 3, 1998 under the pre-contract for sale and purchase as of the Daegu District Court No. 29622, Feb. 14, 2015.

C. The defendant is the subject of Gangwon's riverB, and the riverB made the registration of the transfer of the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") to the defendant, since the riverB did not own any property other than the real estate of this case, and is in the insolvent status.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 6 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for cancellation of provisional registration of this case

A. Termination of the right to complete the pre-sale agreement based on the pre-sale agreement

The right which would have the effect of sale by the other party of the pre-sale in the unilateral promise for sale, namely, the right to conclude the pre-sale agreement, if it is a kind of right to form and exercise the period of exercise between the parties, and if there is no such an agreement, it shall be exercised within 10 years from the time when the pre-sale was established, and the right to conclude the pre-sale agreement shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period. The purpose of the exclusion period is to promptly determine legal relations by allowing the right holder to exercise the relevant right promptly. Unlike the lapse of a certain period and the non-exercise of the right, the extinctive prescription would bring about the effect of extinction of the right immediately after the lapse of the said period, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the starting point of reckoning the progress of the period is when a right occurs in principle, and even if there is a special agreement between the parties to exercise the right to complete the pre-sale agreement even if the period of exercise expires for 10 years from the date when the initial right comes into existence, the exclusion period may not be extended by 10 years from the expiration of the right pursuant to the agreement (see, 296.

In light of the above facts, the defendant does not exercise the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation until ten years elapse from December 2, 1998 (attached Form 1, 1, 2) and December 3, 1998 (attached Table 1, 1, 3), which is the date of entering into the instant provisional registration, which is the cause of the instant provisional registration, until the ten-year period from each of the real estate listed in attached Table 1, 1998 (attached Table 1, 1, 2), and December 9, 2015 (attached Table 1, 1, 3, 3, 2015). The right to complete the purchase and sale reservation based on each of the pre-sale agreements has been completed based on the instant provisional registration by exercising the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation on December 2, 2008 (attached Table 1, 1, 2, and 31, 208).

B. Effect of provisional registration of this case

In a case where a provisional registration has been completed to preserve a right to claim ownership transfer on the basis of a pre-sale agreement, if the right to complete the pre-sale expires, such provisional registration shall lose its effect and be cancelled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4787, May 28, 2009).

As seen earlier, the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation based on the purchase and sale reservation, which was the cause of the provisional registration of this case, was already extinguished on December 2, 2008, and December 3, 2008. Accordingly, the provisional registration of this case, which was completed with respect to the real estate of this case, should be invalidated and cancelled. Thus, upon the Plaintiff’s request seeking cancellation of the provisional registration of this case by subrogation of BB, who did not own any property other than the real estate of this case and is in insolvent status, the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case.

3. Determination on the claim for revocation of fraudulent act

A. Establishment of fraudulent act

Notwithstanding the fact that a person entitled to provisional registration was able to exercise the right to make a principal registration based on provisional registration by exercising the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation, the extinctive prescription expires if the other party fails to exercise the right to make a principal registration based on provisional registration in the name of the person entitled to provisional registration. In such a case, if the principal registration based on provisional registration is completed in the name of the person entitled to provisional registration, he/she may be deemed to have renounced his/her extinctive prescription benefits. In such a case, the act of waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription after the expiration of the extinctive prescription has not been extinguished, and thereby, the debtor bears a new obligation that may not have been incurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 20

On December 2, 1998, from December 3, 1998 to December 10, 198, the defendant exercised the right to make a full decision on the provisional registration of this case by exercising the right to purchase and sell the real estate within the exclusion period of 10 years, and did not exercise the right to claim the provisional registration of this case for 10 years despite the fact that the right to claim the provisional registration of this case was able to exercise the right to claim the provisional registration of this case. Thus, the period of extinctive prescription expires. The right to claim the principal registration of this case based on the provisional registration of this case is deemed to have expired. The GangwonB from the person who received the expiration of the right to claim the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case with the right to claim the provisional registration of this case in the name of the defendant with the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration of this case, and the waiver of the right to claim the provisional registration of this case in excess of the debt status constitutes a juristic act in bad faith between BB and the defendant's obligation holder.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant lent 50 million won to Gangnam during several times from 1990 to 1998, and on December 3, 1998, 25 million won out of the above loan claims were remaining, and the provisional registration of this case was made to secure the above loan claims. After the provisional registration was completed, Gangwon paid 500,000 won as interest on the above loan claims several times from June 22, 2012 and paid 5,100,000 won through the account in the name of the Non-Party AnnCC. Thus, the above loan claims were not extinguished by the prescription, and the defendant's right to make the provisional registration based on the provisional registration of the defendant's strong-B did not expire until the expiration of the prescription period. Thus, the defendant's right to claim for the provisional registration of the ownership transfer of this case did not exist.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted the above assertion on the premise that he lent 50 million won to the GangwonB, but it is difficult to believe that the statement of 8 Eul that seems consistent with the above assertion is it is, and rather, according to the statement of 5 to 7 evidence of 50 million won, the defendant bears the obligation of 50 million won to the defendant, and the person who paid part of the loan to the defendant is found to be the non-party corporation D, a corporation, a representative director of which the GangwonB held office as the representative director, and the fact that 500,000 won was paid to the defendant on several occasions, since there is no evidence to support this, the defendant's assertion that is premised on the existence of the defendant's obligation of 50,000 won to the GangwonB, is without merit.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that since 198 after the provisional registration of the real estate of this case was completed, since since 1998, the defendant occupied the land tax, property tax, etc. imposed on the real estate of this case, this constitutes "the case where the purchaser of the real estate has continuously occupied the real estate under delivery of the real estate" and thus, the extinctive

The defendant's assertion is inconsistent with the defendant's assertion that the provisional registration of this case is not a provisional registration to preserve the order of priority of the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the sales contract, but a provisional registration to secure loan claims against GangwonB, and there is no evidence to recognize the fact that the sales contract of this case was concluded between the defendant and the GangwonB before the defendant begins possession of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed as the purchaser of the real estate of this case, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, on October 15, 2015, the declaration of intent by the GangwonB to waive the statute of limitations interest on the provisional registration of this case that the Defendant gave to the Defendant on October 15, 2015 should be revoked by fraudulent act, and the Defendant is obligated to implement each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case which was completed with respect to the real estate of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.