Cancellation of provisional registration of sale

The provisional registration of this case is the provisional registration of security to secure that the defendant lends KRW 100 million, and the obligation to guarantee the provisional registration of this case was not completed due to the suspension of extinction.

Suwon District Court 2017Kadan521610 Provisional Registration Cancellation

Korea

BB

4, 2018

August 8, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. ParkCC completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 18, 2004 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter the real estate in this case) (the reason for sale on August 3, 2004).

B. On October 18, 2004, DoD made a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the instant real estate, but cancelled on August 5, 2005, and the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) as stated in the purport of the claim on the same day.

C. On November 27, 2007, the Plaintiff registered the attachment of the instant real estate (the ground of attachment on November 22, 2007). The Plaintiff’s claims against ParkCC are delinquent taxes, and the claims against the Plaintiff are totaling KRW 22,562,709,790 as shown below 1.

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1, 2, and 3; All purports of oral argument]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The ParkCC entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on August 4, 2005 and entered into the provisional registration of this case. ParkCC currently has an appraised value of KRW 76,436,600 as property on the ground of the real estate of this case, and tax obligations amounting to KRW 562,709,790, and is in excess of its obligation. The right that the other party to the pre-sale becomes effective by expressing his/her intent of completion of the pre-sale agreement in one pre-sale agreement, namely, the right to complete the pre-sale agreement, shall be exercised within 10 years from the date the pre-sale agreement was entered into, and the right to complete the pre-sale agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the exclusion period. The right to complete the pre-sale agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the exclusion period from the provisional registration of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right to claim cancellation of the pre-sale agreement due to the expiration of the exclusion period.

In addition, the defendant asserts that he lent 10 million won to ParkCC and the provisional registration of this case was made for the purpose of its security. However, the defendant did not lend 100 million won to ParkCC, but even if there was a secured obligation, the prescription expires. Therefore, the above provisional registration should also be cancelled as there is no secured obligation.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration of security that the defendant lent 100 million won to ParkCC and completed for the purpose of security, and the above provisional registration is not yet extinguished.

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of pleading 10,000 won and evidence Nos. 10 to 100,000 won (including 10,000 won) and 10,000 won of 2.0 won of 2.0,000 won of 10,000 won of 2.0,000 won of 2.0,000 won of 2.0,000 won of 10,000 won of 2.0,000 won of 10,000 won of 2.7,000 won of 10,000 won of 2.0,000 won of 10,000 won of 2.7,000 won of 10,000 won of 2.7,00 won of 10,000 won of 2.0,000 won of 2,00 won of 10,000 won of 2,00 won of 167.

According to the above facts, the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration for securing that the defendant lends 100 million won to ParkCC, and the ParkCC continued to recognize loan claims, which are the secured debt, and remitted interest as well. Since the defendant resides in the real estate of this case and uses it in the payment of interest, the secured obligation of this case in the provisional registration of this case has not been interrupted and completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da51028, Nov. 12, 2009).

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim that the provisional registration of this case is false provisional registration, or that the security obligation should be cancelled due to the extinction of prescription.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.