Registration of seizure by the State which is based on the registration of effective transfer of ownership shall be valid.

The plaintiffs asserted that the registration of seizure by the defendant (state) based on the registration of transfer of ownership should be cancelled on the premise that the sales contract of this case is null and void. However, as long as the registration of transfer of ownership is recognized as valid registration, the registration of seizure by the defendant (state) based on the registration of transfer of ownership shall be valid.

2011Na11896 Registration for Cancellation of Ownership

The AA

BB Industry Development Corporation

March 21, 2012

April 4, 2012

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant BB industry development corporation shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiffs' primary claims against defendant BB industry development corporation are dismissed, respectively.

3. Based on the plaintiffs' preliminary claim added at the trial, the defendant BB industry development corporation pays to the plaintiffs OO and OO members from November 1, 2009; 5% per annum from March 1, 2010 to April 4, 2012; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. The plaintiffs' remaining conjunctive claims against defendant BB industry development companies and appeals against defendant ParkCC, DDD industry companies, EE construction companies, Korea, and Leecheon-si are dismissed, respectively.

5. The plaintiffs and defendant BB industry development companies bear 20% of the total litigation costs between the plaintiffs and defendant BB industry development companies, and 80% of the plaintiffs, defendant BB industry development companies, respectively, and the appeal costs between the plaintiffs and defendant BCC, DDD industry companies, EE companies, Korea and EE companies are borne by the plaintiffs.

6. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

A. In the first place, Defendant BB Industrial Development Co., Ltd. shall perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed as of August 28, 2009 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet, with respect to the plaintiffs. Preliminaryly, Defendant BB Industrial Development Co., Ltd. shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of OOO and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from August 28, 2009 to the date of this decision, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiffs added the conjunctive claim on the island).

B. Plaintiffs: (1) As to each real estate listed in the separate list, Defendant ParkCC; (2) as to each real estate listed in the separate list, each registration of establishment of neighboring superficies completed by the receipt of No. 46020 on September 28, 2009; (3) as to each registration of establishment of each superficies completed by the receipt of No. 46292 on September 29, 2009; (4) Defendant DDD Industries Co., Ltd. completed by the receipt of No. 2512 on January 20, 2010; (2) as to each registration of establishment of each real estate completed by the receipt of No. 3643 on Jan. 21, 2010; (3) as to each registration of establishment of a new real estate completed by the receipt of No. 1525 on Apr. 6, 2010; (4) as to real estate listed in the separate list No. 1, the receipt of each registration of the same attachment No. 3613636. 5. 5. 201. 5. 201361. 465.

2. Purport of appeal

[Plaintiffs] In the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning Defendant ParkCC, DDD Industries Co., Ltd., EEgy, Korea, and Egycheon City shall be revoked, as described in Paragraph (b).

[Defendant BB Industry Development Co., Ltd.] Disposition Nos. 1 and 2

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence of 1 to 15, Eul evidence of 1 to 15, Eul evidence of 1 to 6 (including serial documentary evidence of 1 to 6), the witness of the first instance court of Justice and the purpose of the whole testimony and arguments of the JJ.

A. The plaintiffs are co-owners of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (this subparagraph and this case's real estate is referred to as "the real estate of this case"), and the plaintiff Jeong and the plaintiff KimK are married, and the plaintiff Jung-R is referred to the plaintiff Jeong-A.

B. On August 25, 2009, Plaintiff Jung-A entered into a sales contract to sell the instant real estate to OO won by selling the instant real estate to the president of the Incheon LL-gu LL Hospital, and by selling the instant real estate as a broker of KimN, who was known to the hospital patients, to the hospital, in order to bear the OO of the capital gains tax paid while converting the LL hospital into the director of the Incheon LL-gu LL Hospital (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

"다. 원고 정AA은 매매계약 즉시 이 사건 부동산의 소유권이전을 선이행하되, 매매대금 OOO원 중 계약금 OOO원은 계약 당일, 중도금 OOO원은 2009. 10. 30., 잔금 OOO 원은 2010. 2. 29.에 지급받기로 약정하고, 이JJ으로부터 계약금 OOO원을 지급받으면서(원고 정AA은 그 중 OOO원만 직접 교부받았고, 나머지 OOO원은 중개비 명목으로 김NN에게 교부되었다) 이JJ에게 소유권이전등기에 필요한 서류들을 교부하였다. 이JJ은 계약 당일 원고 정AA과 합의 하에 매매대금을 양도소득세 OOO원을 포함한 OOO억원으로 기재한 매매계약서를 작성하면서 원고 정AA에게 자신이 사내이사로 있던 MM유통 주식회사 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마칠 수 있다는 점을 고지하고, 매매계약서의 매수인란에 자신의 이름을 기재한 후 그 옆에 'MM유통 주식회사 대표이사'라고 새겨진 인감을 날인하였다. 그리고, 특약사항으로 '잔금 종료일까지 원고 정AA을 매수인측 법인에 감사로 등재한다(이 사건 부동산에 관하여 어떠한 행위를 할 때는 원고 정AA의 허락 하에 실행한다. 예: 대출, 담보, 개발 등)',2009.10.30.까지 매수인 이JJ은 원고 정AA에게 매매대금을 무조건 지급한다' 등을 첨부하고, 김NN, 김PP, 배QQ 등 3인으로부터 매매계약 보증인으로 서명, 날인을 받았다.",라. 그 후 원고 정AA은 이JJ의 요청으로 매수인란에 'BB산업개발 주식회사(이하, 'BB산업개발'이라고 한다)'라고 기재된 원고들의 부동산매매용 인감증명서를 발급 받아 이를 이JJ으로부터 등기절차를 위임받은 법무사에게 지급하였고, 이JJ은 매매계약일자를 2009. 8. 1.로 소급하고 매수인을 피고 'BB산업개발'로 기재하여 작성한 매매계약서와 위 인감증명서를 수원지방법원 이천등기소에 제출하여 2009. 8. 28. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 2009. 8. 1. 매매를 원인으로 피고 BB산업개발 명의로 소유권 이전등기를 마쳤다.

E. However, in contrast to the initial agreement, thisJ borrowed OOwon from Defendant PCC on September 28, 2009 under the guarantee of Defendant BB industry development, and provided the instant real estate as joint collateral. On the same day, thisJ has set up superficies on the part of Defendant PbCC, which stated in the claims of the maximum amount of debt, the maximum amount of debt, the obligor’s joint collateral, and the right to collateral security, and the purpose of which is 30 years with no charge, and the right to collateral security, as stated in the claims of the PB industry development, as stated in the claims of this case. On the other hand, thisJ did not use the said borrowed money for repayment of the existing debt, or for personal use, and did not pay intermediate payment to the Plaintiffs until the date of the intermediate payment payment on October 30, 200

F. On November 16, 2009, the Plaintiff Jeong-A prepared and received a letter of intent that “OO members of the balance of the instant sales contract shall be paid by December 10, 2009, and the remainder of the balance and the transfer income tax shall be later paid.”

G. Meanwhile, on January 20, 2010, Defendant BB industrial development completed each seizure registration as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant real estate on March 29 and April 6, 2010, as follows: (a) Defendant DD Industries Co., Ltd.: (b) the establishment of the right to collateral security stated in the purport of the claim as the maximum debt amount; and (c) Defendant EE building Co., Ltd. on January 21, 2010; and (d) Defendant EE building Co., Ltd. separately completed the registration of collateral security stated in the purport of the claim as to the instant real estate.

H. However, on March 23, 2010, the instant real estate was decided to permit the sale of the instant real estate as the highest price buyer on September 1, 2010, upon the application for voluntary auction by Defendant GambCC, which was a collateral security (right to collateral security).

I. ThisJ is under criminal trial after being prosecuted for the suspicion of deceiving the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s complaint and concluding the instant sales contract, thereby obtaining the amount equivalent to the purchase price.

2. Determination on this safety defense

Defendant Republic of Korea does not dispute the disposition on default, which forms the basis of the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea, on the instant real estate, and asserts that it is unlawful to seek the cancellation of the seizure registration immediately in a civil lawsuit, as stated in the purport of the claim. The Plaintiffs’ lawsuit of this case does not seek the cancellation of the seizure disposition by Defendant Republic of Korea, but rather seek the cancellation of an invalid registration, arguing that the registration on transfer of ownership of Defendant BB industry development prior to the registration of seizure is null and void. Thus, the Plaintiffs are qualified as the parties. The Plaintiffs’ defenses on the premise that the Plaintiffs are claiming the cancellation of the seizure registration by asserting the propriety of the disposition on default, are not reasonable.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Main claim for Defendant BB industrial development

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Although it was true that the plaintiffs entered into the instant sales contract with thisJ, this Court argues that the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant BB industrial development is null and void, since this Court forged the documents for application of registration, such as the sales contract for the instant real estate, and completed the registration under the name of Defendant BB industrial development. Even if a sales contract exists, since Plaintiff PoR and Kim KK did not confer any power on Plaintiff AA regarding the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the instant sales contract with respect to the said plaintiffs' shares is null and void by an act of unauthorized representation, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant BB industry development should be cancelled as a matter of course.

(2) Determination

(A) As long as a registration of ownership transfer has been made on the register of real estate, the procedure and cause should be presumed to be legitimate, and the person claiming for implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer by asserting the invalidation of the cause of the registration shall assert and prove the cause of invalidation, and shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of the procedure, such as where the third party was involved in the act of disposal, not by the direct disposal of the former registered titleholder, and where the third party was involved in the act of disposal, the third party did not have the authority to act for the former owner, or where the third party forged the registration document of the former owner (Supreme Court Decision 91Da26379, 26386, Apr. 24, 1992).

(B) First of all, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff Jung-A-B was notified by thisJ that at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the transfer of ownership can be completed in the name of the representative director rather than in the name of thisJ. ThisJ, upon the preparation of the contract of this case, stated "MM distribution corporation" 0**********0" in the purchaser column of this case. After this, thisJ requested the plaintiff Jung-A-A-A to issue the plaintiffs' certificate of personal seal impression for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant BB industry development in the name of this case. The plaintiff Jung-A-B-B-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

(C) Next, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the statement in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 with respect to the assertion that the right of representation has been made without obtaining any delegation from the Plaintiff Jeong-A, the other right holders of the real estate of this case, and without obtaining any delegation from the Plaintiff Jeong-A-A-A-A-D-A-D-D-, the other right holders of the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the registration of transfer of ownership of Defendant BB industry development was completed due to the valid contract of this case, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiffs’ primary claim for the development of Defendant BB industry on the premise that the above contract of sale was null and void.

B. Preliminary Claim for Defendant BB Industrial Development

(1) According to the above facts, Defendant BB industry development is a party to a sales contract directly entered into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiffs, or at least took over the status of the purchaser from J. Thus, the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from November 1, 2009, the following day following the date of the payment of intermediate payments, and from March 1, 2010, with respect to the remainder of the payment of intermediate payments, from March 1, 2010 to April 4, 2012, and from March 1, 2012, as the Plaintiffs seek, as to the remainder of the payment of intermediate payments, from March 1, 2010 to the date of the payment of the outstanding payment.

(2) The plaintiffs alleged that the initial date of the damages for delay in the sale balance was August 28, 2009, and that it was submitted to the registry as an application form for ownership transfer registration, and that the payment date of the remaining amount was August 28, 2009; the date of the sale contract was August 1, 2009; and the purchase price was stated as OO, but it is difficult to believe that it was different from the date of the actual sale contract as of August 25, 2009; the plaintiffs and the JJ were different from the actual purchase price OO as of the date of the actual sale contract as of August 25, 2009; the remaining amount of the intermediate payment was 200 million won as of October 30, 2009; the date of the last day of each month as of October 30, 2009; and it did not specify the deposit amount on the last day of each month as of October 29, 2010.

C. Claim against the remaining Defendants

The plaintiffs asserted that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant BB industry development, based on the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant BB, should be cancelled on the premise that the contract of this case is null and void, shall also be cancelled. However, as long as the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant BB industry development is recognized as a valid registration, the above registration in the name of the remaining Defendants shall be deemed to be effective. Therefore, the plaintiffs' remaining defendants' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary claim against the defendant BB industry development is dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant BB industry development added at the court of first instance partially accepted it within the scope of the above recognition, and the others' claim against the defendant BB industry development is dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds. The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant BB industry development in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant BB industry development in the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted and the plaintiff's claim against the above part is revoked. The plaintiff's order to pay the above amount for the defendant B industry development and dismissed the plaintiff's remaining conjunctive claim against the above defendant. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant PCC, DDD DD industry company, EE company, Korea, and Leecheon-si is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.