In the absence of special circumstances, the party who is obliged to prove in good faith whether it is false or not shall prove it.

Unless there are special circumstances as to false labelling, there is no evidence to prove that it is presumed in good faith and bad faith, so no reservation can be asserted on the ground that it is invalid.

Civil Procedure Act

2016 group 35215. De-registration of establishment of provisional registration

Maximum AA

United States AA

on October 08, 2017

December 2, 2017

1. Defendant AA’s claim for transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 17, 2013 by receipt of No. 7185, with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, will implement the procedure for registration cancellation of the registration.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Dae-A is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant AA shall be borne by the said Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall

Cheong-gu Office

The order of Paragraph 1 and the defendant Republic of Korea will declare to the plaintiff that the plaintiff will accept the registration of the cancellation of the transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 17, 2013 in accordance with the receipt of No. 7185 on the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the transfer of ownership.

1. Facts of the dispute

On March 21, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in the future of the Plaintiff.

On July 17, 2013, Defendant AA completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”) issued on July 17, 2013 by the Jung-gu District Court’s registration office No. 7185, which was received on July 17, 2013, as to the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional registration”).

As Defendant AA failed to pay the transfer income tax (the amount is the principal tax, and the additional amount is the separate one), the director of the tax office, the Defendant’s agency, attached the right to claim ownership transfer of the building of this case preserved by the provisional registration of this case on October 16, 2013, and completed the registration of seizure (hereinafter “registration of this case”) on October 21, 2013 by the Ji Government District Binding Registry No. 9779.

2. Determination as to Defendant AA’s claim

The Plaintiff and Defendant AA conspired with each other without any transactional reservation, security contract and other causes (hereinafter referred to as the “sale reservation of this case”) and pretended to sell and purchase a pre-sale promise (hereinafter referred to as the “pre-sale promise of this case for convenience”). The fact that the provisional registration of this case was completed on the ground of the pre-sale promise, security contract and other causes does not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts, since the provisional registration of this case is the registration of invalidity of cause, Defendant Subdivision is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The provisional registration of this case is the registration of invalidity of cause that the Plaintiff and the Defendant AAA conspired without any cause, thereby pretending to sell and purchase the instant provisional registration. Therefore, the attachment registration of this case regarding ownership transfer claim preserved for the provisional registration of this case is also null and void, and the Defendant Republic of Korea bears the substantive legal obligation to accept the above cancellation registration as a third party with interest in the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case. As such, the Defendant Republic of Korea has the obligation to declare the Plaintiff’s consent with respect to the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case.

B. Determination

1) Whether to bear the burden of proof

민법 제108조 제1항에서 상대방과 통정한 허위의 의사표시를 무효로 규정하고, 제2항에서 그 의사표시의 무효는 선의의 제3자에게 대항하지 못한다고 규정하고 있는데, 여기에서 제3자는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 선의로 추정할 것이므로 제3자가 악의라는 사실에 관한 주장��입증책임은 그 허위표시의 무효를 주장하는 자에게 있다(대법원 2006. 3. 10. 선고 2002다1321 판결 참조).

2) In a case where a claim arising from a legal relationship formed externally by false representation, which is formed by a false representation, is seized as to whether the Defendant Republic of Korea is a third party under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act, the seizure authority shall have a new legal interest based on such false representation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da70041, May 28, 2004). It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant Republic of Korea constitutes a third party under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7041, May 28, 2004). The Defendant Republic of Korea constitutes a seizure authority that seizes the right to

3) Sub-decisions

In full view of the above discussions, Defendant Republic of Korea is presumed to be in good faith, unless there is any special circumstance as to whether the purchase and sale of this case was void, and as long as there is no evidence to prove that Defendant Republic of Korea was malicious, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant Republic of Korea that the purchase and sale of this case was void, and at least from Defendant Republic of Korea, the provisional registration of this case based on the trade reservation and the above trade reservation cannot be deemed valid.

Therefore, under the premise that the provisional registration of this case against Defendant Republic of Korea is null and void, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant OO is justified, and the claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.