Whether a person who acquired the status of a title truster can seek the exclusion of enforcement against a third party who seized the transferor's claim for share transfer registration against the title trustee.

In a case where a merchant who substantially sectionally owns each shop belonging to a commercial building under title trust with a share of the company corresponding to the ratio of the size of the store and received shares of the company in proportion to the ratio of the size of the store, if the transferee takes over the shares of the company from the transferor and enters the fact of transfer in the "store and share transfer register kept and managed by the company", the status of the truster in relation to the transferor's company is transferred to the transferee. Therefore, it is unreasonable that a third party seizes the transferor's right to claim the transfer registration of shares to the company after the transfer, and

Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 186 and 449 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Lee Young-young (Law Firm Law, Attorneys Oh Jeong-han et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

South Hawn et al.

1. As to the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the non-party, Youngdong Market Co., Ltd. in the non-party, the non-party's share of 6.3/1,765 out of the 1st floor of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 7.2 out of each land listed in the separate sheet No.

(a) the case of this Court No. 94Kadan10487;

B. Defendant Kim Jong-ray case No. 94Kadan10660 of this Court;

(c) the case No. 94Kadan10661 of this Court by the Defendant Heaty;

D. Defendant Park Jong-sik was the case of this Court 94Kadan10662;

(e) Defendant Won-doe case No. 94Kadan10663 of this Court;

(f) the case No. 94 Chicago10905 of this Court;

(g) the case No. 94Kadan11122 of this Court;

(h) Defendant Lee Jong-hoon case 94Kadan11335 of this Court;

(i) the case No. 94Kadan11336, 94Kadan12683 of this Court;

(j) the case of this Court 94Kadan11457;

(k) the case No. 94Kahap2390 of this Court;

(l) the case No. 94Kahap2412 of this Court;

(m) Defendant Kim Jong-ju case No. 94Kahap2476 of this Court;

(n) the case No. 94Kahap2477 of this Court;

(o) the case No. 94Kahap3108 of this Court by Defendant Shyeong-hee;

Provisional seizure based on the original of each decision of provisional seizure shall not be permitted.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1-2 through 17 (each decision), Gap evidence 2 (Settlement Protocol), Gap evidence 3 (No. 3 (No. 4), and court evidence No. 4 (Transcript of the title transfer), and the court's fact-finding results with respect to Youngdong Market Co., Ltd., the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On July 8, 1994, the defendant Kim Jong-m, Park Jong-m, and Won-hon were entered on July 11, 1994; on the 12th of the same month; on the 14th of the same month; on the 19th of the same month; on the 19th of the same month; on the 22th of the same month; on the 21st of the same month; on the 26th of the same month; on the 26th of the same month; on the 25th of the same month; on the 25th of the same month; on the 25th of the same month; on the 15th of the same year, on the 15th of the same year, the defendant Min-hon entered on the 11st of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the building of this case); on the basis of the original copy of each provisional attachment decision as to the non-party company’s share transfer registration; and on the non-party 12646.

B. The land of this case was originally owned by Suwon-si, but the merchants, who were engaged in funeral services at the place where the above Young-dong market was located, did not hold the share of the land of this case and the building of this case in the name of the non-party company for convenience in order to obtain the market permission from Suwon-si on 1973, but the price was shared by all the above merchants, and all the construction costs of the building of this case on the land of this case were borne by the above merchants, and all the above merchants actually owned the land of this case and the building of this case were owned by the above merchants. However, the registration for transfer of ownership of the land of this case and the registration for preservation of ownership of the building of this case was made under the name of the non-party company, and each of the above merchants held the share of the land of this case and the building of this case on behalf of the non-party company, and each of them held the share of the whole land of this case and the building of this case, and obtained a certificate to clarify this fact by calculating the shares of the non-party company per 80 per share.

C. When the above merchant intends to dispose of his/her own store on the other hand, the transferor transferred his/her store to the transferee, affixed his/her signature and seal on the securities side of the non-party company's own stocks, and entered him/her in the column of transferor and transferee of the non-party company's "store and the share transfer register". The non-party, one of the above merchants, also owned the store of 81 and 82 among the buildings of this case, and transferred 81 out of 14 December 14, 1993 to the plaintiff on December 14, 1993, and entered the above transfer situation in the 320 share of the non-party company's stocks owned by the above movement district in the face of 320 share shares of the non-party company, and entered the above "store and share transfer register" in the non-party company.

D. At the settlement prior to the filing of the suit on August 30, 1990, the said merchants confirmed their respective ownership shares in the building of this case and the land of this case between the non-party company and the non-party company according to the size ratio of their stores at that time. The shares in the above moving area were 14.4/6 of the land of this case and 12.6/1765 of the building of this case.

2. Determination:

The Defendants: (a) under the premise that the above movement district was in title trust with respect to the shares corresponding to the two stores among the instant building and the instant land, the said movement district provisionally seized the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust with respect to the non-party company regarding each of the above shares in the above movement district; (b) whether each merchant is entitled to seek the exclusion of the execution of provisional seizure; and (c) in this case, each merchant has the right to claim for the exclusion of the above provisional seizure against the non-party company, by substantially dividing the shares of the building and the site where the said store is located, but transfers the shares of the building and the site to the non-party company after transferring the title trust with respect to the shares of the said building and the site. In addition, the transfer of the store and the execution of the procedure should be made by the transfer of

Therefore, on December 14, 1993, before the Defendants provisionally seized the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership in the order, the Defendants already acquired the above 81 shares from the above mobile district on December 14, 1993, and simultaneously acquired the shares corresponding thereto, and entered the fact of transfer in the "store and the share transfer register" kept in the non-party company, and thus, the status of the truster as to the non-party company as to the shares in the above mobile district and the shares in 1/4/6 of 2,017 among the land in this case as to the shares in the non-party company as to the shares in the above mobile district and the shares in the order of the land and the building in this case as to the non-party company was transferred finally to the non-party company under the agreement of the non-party company and the non-party company. Accordingly, at the time the provisional seizure order of this case was issued, only the plaintiff can claim the transfer registration against the non-party company on the ground that the above right to claim the transfer registration was not valid in the above order of the non-party company.

Judges Choi Chuncheon (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-soo