Attachment of a State-mortgaged claim is legitimate because the sales contract cannot be deemed to have been lawfully rescinded.

As to the outstanding balance, it cannot be deemed that the contract was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the procedure for cancellation of the contract, such as preparing documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the Defendant Company, and notifying the Defendant Company thereof, the seizure of the State’s collateral security claims

2011 Ghana5741 De-mortgage, etc.

AAA

BB et al.

April 27, 2012

May 11, 2012

1. Defendant BB, Inc., is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

A. As to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage completed under No. 20565 on July 5, 2007 with respect to the Changwon District Court's private registry office, and

B. As to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list, each procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on July 5, 2007 by the above registry office No. 20566, will be implemented.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB is borne by Defendant BB, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by the Plaintiff.

Paragraph (1) and Defendant Republic of Korea shall declare to the Plaintiff the intent of acceptance for the registration of the end of each registration of the establishment of a new mortgage as listed in paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 15, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant BB (CCC on August 10, 2007 to BB; hereinafter “Defendant Company”) to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). The main contents are as follows.

B. On July 5, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant Company on the following (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. In accordance with the agreement of this case, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of collateral security”) in each part of paragraph (1) of this case to the Defendant Company, but the Defendant Company did not pay any balance to the Plaintiff as of the date of closing argument.

D. On the other hand, the foregoing mortgage claims, and the Frigic Tax Office were seized on October 22, 2007, and on January 24, 2008, the Busan Jin Tax Office was seized respectively on January 24, 2008 and completed its attachment registration. [Grounds for Recognition]

O. Defendant Company: Confession

O) Defendant Republic of Korea: The non-sovered facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, and evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

The defendant company did not submit a written response and did not attend the court on the date of pleading. The plaintiff's assertion is deemed to have been led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant Company fails to pay any balance by May 15, 2009, and the instant sales contract was rescinded in accordance with the instant sales contract and the instant agreement, and the secured debt of the instant mortgage became extinguished, and the Defendant Republic of Korea is obliged to express its consent to the registration of cancellation of the instant secured mortgage.

B. Determination

The plaintiff's assertion is premised on the cancellation of the sales contract of this case, and first, we examine whether the sales contract of this case has been lawfully rescinded.

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff agreed that the instant sales contract would be rescinded without any separate peremptory procedure if the remainder is not paid by May 15, 2009 between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, but on the other hand, barring any special circumstances, it should be delayed due to the Plaintiff’s performance of its obligation on the outstanding payment date, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant Company with performance by preparing documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer and informing the Defendant Company of its performance, etc.

2) The plaintiff asserts that " there are special circumstances that can be viewed as a special agreement to invalidate the contract by itself with the intention to pay the remainder of the contract," but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, the plaintiff asserts that "the defendant company has made clear that it did not intend to perform the obligation to pay the remainder to the plaintiff, so it may lawfully rescind the sales contract of this case without providing the performance," but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant company explicitly expressed its intent to refuse the performance to the plaintiff.

3) Ultimately, the instant sales contract cannot be deemed to have been lawfully rescinded.

C. Sub-decision

Since the plaintiff's assertion is not recognized as a premise, it is without reason to live further.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is justified, and the defendant's claim against the Republic of Korea is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.