may not refuse the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the claim is satisfied.

Therefore, the Defendants cannot refuse the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the concurrence of claims, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the claims compete.

2014Gahap3275 Registration of transfer of ownership

Korea

1. Park A. 2. E.B.

September 3, 2014

October 1, 2014

1. The Defendants implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of an accord and satisfaction agreement concluded on November 16, 2012 with respect to one-half shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 to the IntegratedCC Construction Co., Ltd.

2. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2 attached hereto, Defendant ParkA will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of an accord and satisfaction agreement on November 16, 2012.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

"A." The GeneralCC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC Construction") notified 21 national taxes, including value-added tax, from the director of the District Tax Office affiliated with the Plaintiff, but did not pay taxes. At present, the amount of delinquent taxes is equivalent to the total amount of OOOO, including additional dues in arrears." (b) The Defendants entered into a construction contract with the OO-Gu O-dong O-gu, 752-1, 752-2 as of April 5, 201 in order to newly construct "ODF shop" between husband and wife who jointly operates real estate sales business with the trade name "DDF," and between OO-Gu O-Gu O-dong and 752-2 as of March 10, 2012:

4. Contract amounts of OOO(including value-added tax OOO(s));

5. Time and method of payment of the price.

Down Payment: OOOO and OOOOOOO when the first contract begins.

The first progress portion: OOO at the completion of the underground framework construction

OOO(OO) when completion is completed up to the fourth floor of the 2nd progress construction project;

Until 7th floor of the 3rd progress pelO when completion is completed.

4. The OOO when the completion of the 4th progress project is completed

OOO(cash payments in cash)/OOOO(payment in substitute) within two months after completion of the payment.

7. Warranty bond rate: 3/100;

C. On November 9, 2012, the Defendants settled the portion of the construction cost in cash and paid it toCC Construction. On November 16, 2012, pursuant to Article 5 of the instant construction contract, the Defendants did not request the Defendants to transfer the ownership of Nos. 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, and 706 of the instant building and the ownership of No. 1512-2, 109, and 505 of the instant building to the CC Construction (hereinafter “the instant agreement”), and the Defendants did not request the Defendants to transfer the ownership of No. 703, 704, 705, 706 and 705 of the instant building to each of the instant building to the CC Construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff had a tax claim equivalent to the total amount of OOOO won for theCC Construction. The instant construction contract provides that OOOOO won shall be paid in lieu of the construction cost, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract separately after the completion of the DDF shop and concluded the instant contract and specified each of the instant buildings as the object of payment in lieu of the said payment in kind, and CC Construction is recognized as having been in excess of or insolvent in addition to the right to claim ownership transfer registration of each of the instant buildings. As such, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration of each of the instant buildings in accordance with the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff is obliged to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration to CC Construction, and the Plaintiff may file a claim with the Defendants on behalf of the Defendants for the implementation of the above registration procedure in order to preserve the tax claim against CC Construction.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's right to claim for ownership transfer registration of each of the buildings of this case is concurrent with the plaintiff's taxation claims, the construction price claims of subcontractors including FFT Co., Ltd., and the defendants' warranty bond claims. Thus, the defendants' right to claim for ownership transfer registration of each of the buildings of this case, which

“In light of the evidence evidence No. 2, FFto Co., Ltd., a subcontractor ofCC Construction, received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of 2012 OOO on October 17, 2012 with respect to the claim for construction price against the Defendants ofCC Construction. Since GG building industry corporation, a subcontractor ofCC Construction, partially transferred the instant claim for construction price fromCC Construction to the Defendants on January 28, 2013 (hereinafter “transfer of the instant claim”), several subcontractors were notified of the transfer of the instant claim for construction price, but the attachment and collection order of this case was issued as a seized claim, and the assignment of the instant claim is not related to the above claim for transfer registration, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Defendants’ claim for transfer registration of the instant construction price had already been rejected for the reasons that the Defendants had already paid the instant claim for construction price in cash after the final payment of the construction price. Accordingly, the Defendants’ claim for the transfer of the instant claim cannot be deemed to be justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.