It is not a third party that the defendant merely attached the right to claim ownership transfer registration under the contract.

Since a transferee of contractual bonds or a creditor who has seized or entirely attached such bonds themselves is not a third party referred to in this context, the defendant merely attached the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership under the contract for sale and purchase, does not constitute a third party.

2012 a statement of intent to accept a provisional registration to cancel a provisional registration

Park AA

Korea

April 18, 2013

May 23, 2013

1. As to the cancellation registration of provisional registration of each right to claim ownership transfer registration completed on August 9, 201 by Hongcheon District Court, Hongcheon District Court No. 19158, which was completed on August 9, 201 with respect to shares of 1/4 of KimO among each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Defendant expressed his/her intention in the face of dispatch.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a provisional registration to preserve ownership transfer registration claims (hereinafter referred to as "provisional registration to secure ownership transfer registration claims on shares in KimOOOO's 1/4 shares in each of the instant real estate, on August 8, 201, and on August 201, 200, and on August 8, 201, and 00, and on August 101, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a provisional registration to secure ownership transfer registration claims on shares in the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as "provisional registration to secure ownership transfer registration claims on shares in KimOO's 1/4 shares in each of the instant real estate"), and on August 9, 201, the Defendant entered into a provisional registration to secure ownership transfer registration claims on ownership transfer registration claims on October 14, 201, and on August 10, 201.

“. However, until June 2012, KimO, etc. did not pay KRW 000 won to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff sent each content certificate to the effect that the contract for the instant trade was rescinded to KimO, etc. around June 2012, and KimO, etc. sent to the Plaintiff, around June 2012, filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration under Seoul Northern District Court 201Kadan28476, Seoul Northern District Court 2012Kadan28476, and won the judgment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”), and the said judgment was finalized on September 14, 2012, and became final and conclusive on October 6, 2012,” and “No dispute was raised, and all evidence Nos. 1 or 5 (including each number number) are included).

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. When provisional seizure or seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer registration is carried out, the third debtor shall not be allowed to transfer his/her registration to the debtor, and the third debtor shall not be allowed to oppose his/her creditor as such. However, it is not bound by the debtor and the third debtor's disposition as to the legal relationship which is the cause of the claim by provisional seizure or seizure, and thus, the basic contractual relationship itself can be rescinded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da53192, Jan. 23, 1998; 96Da10867, Apr. 25, 1997).

B. According to the above facts, the contract for the purchase and sale of this case was lawfully rescinded as of June 2012 by the plaintiff, and accordingly, the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the plaintiff of KimO was extinguished, as determined in the judgment of this case, and as long as the defendant completed the additional registration of the seizure of the right to claim the transfer of ownership, such as transfer of ownership, etc. in the provisional registration to preserve the right to claim the attachment, even if the defendant completed the provisional registration in order to preserve the right to claim the attachment, the supplementary registration does not have any effect, and unless there are special circumstances, the defendant who completed the provisional registration is a third party interested in the registration and is obliged to accept the procedure for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Since the Defendant seized the right to claim ownership transfer registration before the cancellation of the contract of the instant purchase and completed the additional registration in the instant provisional registration, the Defendant is not obligated to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the instant provisional registration by falling under a third party prescribed in the proviso of Article 548(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

The third party referred to in the proviso of Article 548 (1) of the Civil Act, when the contract is terminated, generally refers to a person who has a new interest before the cancellation, and has acquired full rights by registration, delivery, etc., based on the legal effect arising from the cancelled contract, and the person who has taken over the contractual claim or the creditor who has seized or has seized the claim itself, is not a third party referred to in this context (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da51685, Apr. 11, 200). Thus, the defendant, which is merely a seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer registration under the pre-sale contract, does not constitute a third party referred to in the proviso of Article 548 (1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the defendant's argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.