Plaintiff (Law Firm Chang, Attorneys Cho Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 1

September 24, 2008

1. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 1 performed the procedure to register cancellation of the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon which was completed on November 27, 2001 by the Suwon District Court Branch of Sungwon District Court Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of Branch of District Court.

B. The defendant branch credit union expressed its intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The main text is as follows (the main text is that the defendant branch credit union seeks cancellation of the provisional seizure registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis, which is based on the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis as set forth in the main text of this Article against the defendant branch credit union, but it appears to the purport of seeking acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the right to lease on a deposit basis as it appears

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 2001, with Defendant 1, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with each of the following terms: (a) the lease deposit was KRW 100 million; (b) the monthly rent was KRW 8 million; and (c) the duration of the lease was from December 30, 201 to December 24, 2001:

B. However, around November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff prepared a lease contract for the lease of lease on a deposit basis with Defendant 1 as of November 26, 2001, including KRW 300 million, and its duration from November 26, 2001 to December 24, 2001. As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “registration of lease on a deposit basis”) each of Defendant 1 with Defendant 1, respectively, as of the registration office of Sung-nam Branch Branch Branch Branch of Suwon District Court on November 27, 2001 as of the receipt of No. 89329, Nov. 27, 2001.

C. The Plaintiff and Defendant 1 concluded a lease agreement around December 30, 2003, which was around the time when the term of the above lease agreement expires, and reduced the lease deposit to KRW 70 million and monthly rent to KRW 3.5 million. The Plaintiff returned the difference of the lease deposit to Defendant 1 around that time.

D. Around March 3, 2004, at Defendant 1’s request, the lease agreement was modified with the purport of increasing the monthly rent of KRW 4.2 million instead of returning the full amount of the above lease deposit between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1. On March 3, 2004, the Plaintiff subrogated Defendant 1’s debt amounting to KRW 71,593,082 on March 3, 2004, instead of returning the lease deposit to Defendant 1.

E. On November 25, 2004, the Defendant Diplomatic Credit Union asserted that Defendant 1 had a claim of KRW 80,954,464 against Defendant 1, and completed the registration of provisional seizure against the right to lease on a deposit basis as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet by obtaining a decision of provisional seizure against the right to lease on a deposit basis (No. 2004Kadan8705) from this court on November 25, 2004.

【Ground of recognition as to Defendant 1】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 5-5, and evidence Nos. 1 and 1, respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings

【Ground for recognition of the Defendant’s branch credit union】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 to 5-5, Eul’s evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1, which is the legal relationship indicated in the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case, terminated on December 31, 2003. Since the plaintiff returned the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the defendant 1 by March 3, 2004, the defendant 1 is obligated to cancel the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case.

In addition, since the defendant branch credit union falls under a third party who has an interest in the registration of cancellation of the lease on a deposit basis of this case, the defendant branch credit union is obligated to express his consent about cancellation of the registration of the lease on a deposit basis.

B. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant branch credit union

1) The above defendant asserts that even if the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with the plaintiff and the defendant 1 to purchase a false deposit amounting to 300 million won, it cannot be asserted against the above defendant who is a bona fide third party. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis so long as the plaintiff did not fully return 300 million won to the defendant 1. The fact that the contract to lease on a deposit basis was prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and that the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis was completed as mentioned above. However, a third party who is not able to oppose the invalidity of false declaration refers to a person who has an interest as a new legal cause based on the legal relationship formed externally by a false declaration. The registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was completed before the provisional seizure registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case was completed on December 31, 2003. Therefore, the above defendant's assertion that the above legal relation had not been accepted.

2) Since the above defendant's legal renewal of the lease agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 1 on November 26, 2001 has been established, the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case is asserted to be effective even without the registration of alteration of the term of the lease. Thus, since the plaintiff and defendant 1 entered into a new lease agreement as of November 26, 2001 after the termination of the lease agreement as of December 30, 2003, there is no room to acknowledge an implied renewal on the premise that the parties did not express any intent. Accordingly, the above defendant's argument in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

[Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)