Any change in the real rights to real estate made by an agreement on title trust and a registration made pursuant thereto, shall not be effective or void against a third party.

The term "third party" refers to the person who has a new interest with the trustee on the basis of being a real right holder, and the person who has acquired a real right, such as ownership or mortgage, and the seizure or provisional seizure creditor as well as the third party is also included. The good faith and bad faith of the third party is not to be asked.

Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name

2012 Gohap841 De-registration of seizure

LAA

Korea

December 27, 2012

January 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each attachment registration completed on March 5, 2010 by the receipt No. 9485 of the record and the registration completed on June 15, 2009 with respect to 1/2 of the shares of YB in the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 20, 2003, the Plaintiff newly constructed a real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “CCMoel”) at its own expense, acquired it originally, and trusted a registration title of 1/2 shares out ofCCmoto her to her in order to avoid loan convenience and tax issues, and completed registration of initial ownership by sharing with the Plaintiff on September 24, 2003.

B. The Defendant completed the attachment registration (hereinafter “instant attachment registration”) under No. 25182, which was received on June 15, 2009, and No. 9485, which was received on March 5, 2010, as to 1/2 shares of YB out of YB due to the default of national taxes by YB.

C. On April 21, 2010, HB rendered a judgment to the Plaintiff on the condition that the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the part of 1/2 portion of the CCTV shall be complied with (2009Na1565 (main office), 2009Na1572 (Counterclaim), and the Plaintiff and HB filed a final appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41348 (main office) and 2010Da41355 (Counterclaim). On the same day, the final appeal was all dismissed on September 29, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, the evidence Nos. 1 to 4-2, and Eul's evidence No. 1, the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion

CCMoel is a sole building owned by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff directly constructed and acquired at its own expense, and it is merely a trust with the name of 1/2 of those for the convenience of the loan to NAB. The registration of ownership preservation under the name of NAB is a registration invalid. Nevertheless, the Defendant misleads 1/2 of the CCmoel as the property of NAB, completed the seizure registration of this case, and this is a illegal seizure execution against the property owned by NAB and the UB, which is an unlawful execution against the property owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant seeks to cancel it as an exercise of the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on ownership.

3. Determination

The agreement on title trust and any change in real rights to real estate made by registration under the agreement on title trust shall be null and void (Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and “third party” in this context refers to a person who has a new interest with him/her on the basis of his/her real right, and includes not only a person who has acquired a real right, such as ownership or mortgage, but also a creditor of attachment or provisional attachment. The third party’s good faith and bad faith are not asked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da56529, Mar. 28, 200). Since the health unit of this case was acquired under the name of the actual owner of the movable property, and the plaintiff was entrusted with the name of 1/2 of registration under the name of CC, which was registered under the name of the title trustee, and the third party’s title is invalid under the premise that the registration under the name of the plaintiff and B under the name of the title trustee is null and void.

4. Conclusion

Then, the claim of this case by the plaintiff is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.