Whether the contract to lease on a deposit basis has been terminated and whether there is a duty to express consent to the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of lease on a deposit basis.

There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the contract of lease on a deposit basis with Defendant BB, and even if the contract of lease on a deposit basis was terminated, there is no evidence to deem that GGGG acquired the above contract of lease on a deposit basis from Defendant BB.

Article 450(2) of the Civil Act

2012 Gohap 54135 Doz. for cancellation of registration of chonsegwon

AA Corporation

1. BB 2. FixedCC

4. Dangerous Savings Bank;

5. Trustee in bankruptcy of the EE Savings Bank, the litigant Savings Bank, the litigant Savings Bank, the litigant of which is the successor to the Korea Stock Bank;

August 22, 2013

September 5, 2013

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

“The Plaintiff, the Defendant BB, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon creation completed on July 18, 2008 by the Gwangju District Court No. 121771 with respect to the upper point of 102.63 square meters from the 2nd floor of the building, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the Defendant JeongCC, the Republic of Korea, and the Korea DDR Bank’s successor to the EE Savings Bank, the trustee in bankruptcy of the EE Savings Bank, the EE Savings Bank, the EE Savings Bank, the EE Savings Bank, the EE Savings Bank, (hereinafter “Defendant FFF Corporation”) expressed its intention of each acceptance on the registration.

1. Basic facts

"A. On July 18, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract for lease on a deposit basis with 102.63 square meters above upper point from November 22, 2007 to November 22, 2009 (hereinafter "contract for lease on a deposit basis"). On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract for lease on a deposit basis with 102.63 square meters above upper point from among the buildings listed in the attached list with Defendant BB and the attached list, and entered into a lease contract for lease on a deposit basis with 104.63 square meters from November 22, 2007 to 1009 with OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO of the same day."

C. On October 1, 2008, as the Gwangju District Court 2008TTTT 1303, Defendant Jung-CC received an order for the seizure and assignment of the claim for lease on a deposit basis against the Plaintiff of Defendant BB, and entered the registration of seizure of lease on a deposit basis as the receipt of the Gwangju District Court OOOOOOO on the same day.

D. HB mutual savings bank (the trade name was changed to DB bank on June 30, 2010, and the defendant (ex officio) changed to DB bank on September 9, 2010) entered the registration of seizure and collection of the right to lease on a deposit basis as the Gwangju District Court 2008TTT17934 on December 29, 2008, among the right to lease on a deposit basis against the plaintiff of the defendant BB, the registration of seizure of the right to lease on a deposit basis was entered as the OO of the Gwangju District Court on January 8, 2009.

E. On August 28, 2012, Defendant Republic of Korea seized some of the claims for lease on a deposit basis against the Plaintiff of Defendant BB, Inc. (aggravated additional charges and expenses for disposition on default added thereto) and entered the registration of attachment of lease on a deposit basis with the Gwangju District Court on September 10, 2012.

【Evidence - Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 4, each entry in Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant right to lease on a deposit basis was terminated when the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with GGG on November 22, 2008, as the Plaintiff acquired the KRW 00 of the deposit money for the lease on a deposit basis of Defendant BB, or ② Defendant BB was terminated on or around September 22, 2008 because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to pay management expenses, etc. to the Plaintiff due to the business shortage in around September 22, 2008. Thus, Defendant BB was obligated to cancel the registration of the instant right to lease on a deposit basis to the Plaintiff.

(2) In addition, the attachment and assignment order of Defendant Jeong-CC was resolved by GGG, and the DG Bank and the Defendant Republic of Korea seized ① the obligation to return the deposit money against the Plaintiff of the Defendant BB, extinguished on November 22, 2008, and is null and void, or ② the Defendant Jung-CC, Korea, and FFFF Corporation are obligated to express their consent to the above cancellation registration procedure, as it is null and void in conjunction with the claim attachment and assignment order of the Defendant Jung-CC.

B. Determination

First, as to whether the contract of chonsegwon was terminated, even if the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with GGG on the same object as the contract of chonsegwon (it appears that the object of the lease between the Plaintiff and GGG is different from the object of the contract of chonsegwon), such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the contract of chonsegwon was terminated as a matter of course, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the contract of chonsegwon with Defendant BB.

Next, as to whether the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis was terminated due to Defendant BBB’s nonperformance of payment obligation such as management expenses, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Finally, even if the contract of lease on a deposit basis was terminated, there is no evidence to view that GGG had taken over the above claim for lease on a deposit basis from Defendant BBB, and even if GGG acquired the above claim for lease on a deposit basis from Defendant BBB, such transfer of the claim for lease on a deposit basis cannot be set up against the third party, such as the seizure of the above claim for lease on a deposit basis and all creditors, unless it takes the procedure for transferring the claim for lease on a deposit basis by the certificate with a fixed date under Article 450(2) of the Civil Code, unless it takes the procedure for transferring the claim for lease on a deposit basis by the certificate with a fixed date under Article 450(2) of the Civil Code (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da35659, Mar. 25,

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant BB cannot be deemed to have the obligation to cancel the registration of the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis (the contract of this case was terminated, and even if the Plaintiff paid all the amount based on the attachment and assignment order to Defendant PCC, the seizure and assignment order of Defendant PCC’s claim is merely against the OB won, which is part of the above payment of the entire deposit amount, rather than against the OB won. Thus, the above claim against Defendant BB is without merit. The Plaintiff’s claim against the other Defendants except Defendant BB is premised on the premise that the Plaintiff had the right to seek the cancellation of the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and thus, it is not justified without any further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.