beta
Text
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate and the establishment of superficies on the attached list No. 1.
Reasons
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the lawsuit seeking implementation of the procedure for cancellation of registration against a person who is not a person who is responsible for registration, who loses his right or is not a person who is not a person (the title holder of registration or his general successor) due to the registration in the form of the registry, is illegal against a person who is not a party standing.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da39225, Feb. 25, 1994; 2014Da90928, Jul. 23, 2015). The term “real estate” in this case refers to “real estate less than one real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1”.
Attached Form
The same shall also apply to real estate in the list Nos. 2 and 3
A lawsuit seeking the implementation of each procedure for registering the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of the establishment of superficies is filed against a mortgagee and a person holding a superficies who is the person liable for registration. As such, the part seeking the cancellation against the defendant who is the debtor of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage concerning real estate and the person holding a superficies is unlawful as against the non-qualified person.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The court of the first instance cited this part of the reasoning of the judgment is to delete the fourth 3 of the judgment among the grounds of the first instance judgment, and the fourth 3 of the judgment is to add the following judgments to the new argument of the plaintiffs in this court.
1. The plaintiffs' assertion;
2. Since the judgment is the same as the part of the judgment, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s lending KRW 300,000,00 to the Plaintiffs, but the Defendant received KRW 308,436,962 from the deposit and received all of the above borrowed amounts, holding the ownership transfer registration of real estate 2 and 3 is contrary to the good faith principle.
However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendant's real estate Nos. 2 and 3.