Seoul Eastern District Court 2012 Gohap1649 ( October 24, 2012)

Since a registration of invalidity of cause made by means of false representation in conspiracy is a duty to cancel provisional registration.

In the absence of the fact that there was no pre-contract for the sale and purchase of real estate, the fact that a false pre-contract was concluded by collusion between the parties, does not conflict between the parties, and provisional registration was made on the basis of the pre-contract for the sale,

2012Na67698 For example, cancellation, etc. of the right to claim transfer of ownership

Park AAA

OO 2 persons

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2012Gahap1649 Decided July 24, 2012

January 29, 2013

February 28, 2013

1. The part against the plaintiff against the defendant O among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant OO will implement the cancellation of the registration of the right to claim for transfer of ownership, which was received on August 22, 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court, in the case of the Plaintiff, and completed on August 22, 2008 by 1159476.

2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and Korea shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant OO shall be borne by the Defendant OO, and the Plaintiff’s Credit Guarantee Fund, and the costs of appeal against Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment shall be revoked. The plaintiff, and the defendant OO shall seek the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration and the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration made on August 22, 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court, the Songbu District Court, the Songpa Branch, the registration office, and the registration office, and the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund shall cancel the provisional attachment registration made on November 3, 2008 at the time of the above registration office No. 81069 on the registration of the above claim for transfer of ownership, and the defendant Republic of Korea shall cancel the provisional attachment registration made on November 22, 201 by the above registration office No. 73177 on the provisional attachment of the above claim for transfer of ownership (the plaintiff shall seek the provisional attachment registration and the attachment registration made on November 22, 2011 against the defendant, and the Republic of Korea shall seek the above approval and acceptance of the provisional attachment registration).

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" in the judgment of the court of first instance as well as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding "the third party's reservation to trade" (hereinafter referred to as "the reservation to trade of this case") to "the third party's reservation to trade of this case" on August 21, 2008.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The provisional registration of this case, in collusion with the defendantO and made a false promise to sell this case in order to avoid borrowing the real estate of this case by the plaintiff's children as collateral, and thus, the defendantO has the obligation to cancel the provisional registration of this case which is null and void, and the defendant's Republic of Korea, which made a provisional attachment registration of this case and the provisional registration of this case, has the obligation to accept the above cancellation.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Lee O

(1) Although the Plaintiff and Defendant OO had not entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant real estate, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a false pre-sale agreement without any dispute between the parties, and that the Plaintiff entered into the instant provisional registration on the basis of the instant pre-sale agreement with Defendant OO is as seen earlier. The instant provisional registration is based on the pre-sale agreement, and thus, the instant provisional registration is based on the pre-sale agreement, and the DefendantO is obliged to cancel the instant provisional registration to the Plaintiff.

(2) On this ground, (A) DefendantO first argued, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 000 to the above Defendant for the purpose of protecting the instant real estate owned by it. Thus, it is not possible to respond to the above Defendant’s claim for cancellation of the instant provisional registration before receiving the said amount from the Plaintiff. Thus, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion by DefendantO, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 80,000 to the above Defendant in return for the completion of the instant provisional registration. Thus, DefendantO’s defense of this case is without merit without further review.

(B) Next, DefendantO, while securing the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case, has been issued one promissory note equivalent to the face value of 000 won from DefendantO, and the Plaintiff cannot respond to the request for cancellation of the provisional registration of this case from the Plaintiff to the transfer of the above promissory note. Considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 16, O.M. issued one promissory note with the Plaintiff at par value of 00 won and the issue date of 14 August 2008, 208, and oO (hereinafter referred to as “the Promissory note of this case”) with the Plaintiff’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s o’s y.

B. Determination on the claims against Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and Defendant Korea

This Court's explanation on this part, and the reason why the plaintiff added the following judgments with respect to the matters claimed in the trial of the court, is 3-B. This part of the "Decision on claims against the defendant Credit Card Fund and the defendant's Republic of Korea" is the same as the part of the "Decision on claims against the defendant Credit Card Fund and the defendant's Republic of Korea," and this part is cited in accordance

[Supplementary Judgment]

The plaintiff, and the provisional attachment registration of the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund with respect to the provisional attachment of this case, was made upon the decision of provisional attachment in the absence of the preserved claim, and both of these are invalid, or both of these are repaid, and the attachment registration of the defendant Republic of Korea was made without the execution claim. Thus, the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, and the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, and the Republic of Korea are also null and void since they have been made without the execution claim. However, as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no evidence to prove that the execution claim against the above provisional attachment registration and the above provisional attachment registration have the obligation to express their intention to accept the cancellation of the above hill, or there is no evidence to prove that the execution claim against the above provisional

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant OO shall be accepted in its reasoning, and all claims against the defendant credit guarantee fund, and the Republic of Korea shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. Since the part against the defendant O in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant O is unfair in some conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant OO is accepted, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant OO is ordered to implement the procedure of cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case, and the plaintiff's credit guarantee fund, and the appeal against the Republic of Korea