As long as the registration of preservation of ownership is null and void, the defendants are obligated to express their consent on the registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of this case.

In case where the land readjustment project executor has designated a land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay before a land substitution disposition and disposes of it to a third party, if a land substitution disposition is later announced, the last possession of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay or the person registered in the register of land

Article 214 of the Civil Act: Claim for Removal and Prevention of Disturbance against Ownership

2015 Gohap5081 Cancellation, etc. of registration of initial ownership

2016Gahap40760 (combined) Registration of cancellation of ownership

The AA

Republic of Korea and 9

December 14, 2016

January 25, 2017

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to BB:

A. On September 7, 2004, DefendantCC Cooperative implements the procedure for cancellation registration of registration of cancellation of ownership preservation completed by DD District EE registry office of D District Court EE registry office, and

B. The Republic of Korea, as stated in the above paragraph (a) of this Article, expressed its consent on the registration of cancellation of the registration of the preservation of ownership as stated in the above paragraph (a).

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

피고 CC조합(이하 '피고 조합'이라 한다)은 1994년 EE시 OO면 OO리, OO리 일원 113,XXX㎡의 토지구획정리사업(이하 '이 사건 사업'이라 한다)의 시행자이고, BB 주식회사(이하 'BB'이라 한다)는 피고 조합과 이 사건 사업에 대한 공사도급계약을 체결한 회사이며, 원고는 BB에 대하여 대여금채권을 가지고 있는 사람이고, 피고들은 BB의 채권자로서 BB이 피고 조합에 대하여 가지는 채권을 피압류채권으로 하여 가압류결정을 받아 가압류 등기를 경료한 채권자 및 권리자들이다.

B. Relation to each real estate stated in the separate sheet

1) On October 0, 1994, BB entered into a land readjustment project contract with the Defendant Union on the instant project, the construction cost was 4,287, a trade-related class, and a trade-related class for a land readjustment project. According to the said contract, the construction cost shall, in principle, be paid as a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, but it may be paid in cash by mutual agreement between the ordering person

2) Around October 00, 1997, the progress rate of the construction work based on the instant project was 83%. On October 0, 1997, the Defendant Union obtained approval from the EE market to sell the development recompense land for the payment of the construction work for BB from October 21, 1997, and transferred 12 parcels to BB, instead of the payment of the development recompense land for the instant project, in lieu of the payment of the development recompense land for the development recompense land, BB was registered as purchaser on the register of the development recompense land. Of these six parcels, the six parcels were 00 00 00 5 5 00 Y, 6 2 0 5 00 Y, 15 4 jup, 16 5 jup, 16 jup, 2-2 2-2 19 jup, 18 jup 2-2 19 jup, and the above development recompense land was listed in the order of replotting.

3) 이후 피고 조합은 BB을 상대로 MM지방법원 OO지원 98가합XXXX호로 채무부존재확인의 소를 제기하였는데, 위 소송에서 '이 사건 사업과 관련하여 피고 조합이 BB에게 697,XXX,XXX원의 채무를 부담하고 있음을 확인하고, 피고 조합은 BB에게 위 채무액을 이 사건 사업 지구 내 체비지 또는 현금으로 2001. OO. OO.까지 지급하기로 한다'는 내용의 강제조정결정이 내려졌고, 위 결정은 2000. OO. OO. 확정되었다.

4) Under the above compulsory adjustment decision, the Defendant Union decided to transfer BB the above 697 PP, OO 4 block 2, 17 block 5 lots, and 18 block 1 lots (each of the development recompense land was confirmed as 7 or 9 real estate listed in the separate sheet as a replotting disposition on February 6, 2004) to B in lieu of the payment of the said compulsory adjustment decision, the capital grade, and the capital grade, which are the land secured for the development recompense for the instant project, and notified BB that it will take over the land in the order of 18 block 1 lots on the land secured for development recompense for development outlay.

5) Meanwhile, with respect to the instant project, the Mayor/Do Governor authorized a land readjustment and rearrangement project plan alteration and a land substitution plan (predetermined designation) on October 00, 1996, and authorized a land rearrangement and rearrangement project plan alteration and a land substitution plan alteration (disposition) on October 00, 2004.

C. Progress of the relevant civil case

1) 피고 조합은 MM지방법원 OO지원 2002가합XXXX호로 NNN 등을 상대로 하여, 이들이 BB의 별지 목록 기재 각 부동산(이하 '이 사건 각 부동산'이라 한다)의 환지처분 전 체비지들을 포함한 수십 필지의 체비지들에 대한 소유권이전등기청구권을 가압류한 것과 관련하여, 이들 체비지가 피고 조합의 소유이므로 위 가압류집행이 배제되어야 한다는 취지로 제3자이의의 소를 제기하였다.

2) 위 2002가합XXXX호 사건의 항소심인 MM고등법원 2003나XXX호 사건에서,위 항소심 법원은 2003. 00. 00. "이 사건 각 부동산의 환지처분 전 체비지들을 포함한 피고 조합이 BB에게 기성금 지급에 갈음하여 양도한 체비지들에 관하여는 피고조합의 BB에 대한 소유권이전등기의무가 존재하고, 그 외 피고 조합의 소유 체비지들에 대하여는 피고 조합의 BB에 대한 소유권이전등기의무가 부존재한다"고 판단하면서 피고 조합의 예비적 청구를 인용하는 판결을 하였고, 위 판결은 2003. 00. 00. 확정되었다.

3) 한편 BB의 채권자인 박PP는 원고가 BB의 채권자로서 BB이 피고 조합에 대하여 가지는 채권을 피압류채권으로 하여 압류 및 추심명령을 받은 후 이 사건 각 부동산에 대하여 강제경매를 신청하자, BB이 이 사건 각 부동산의 소유자임을 전제로 하여 원고를 상대로 이 사건 각 부동산에 관한 강제집행의 불허를 구하는 내용의 소(DD지방법원 2013가합XXXX)를 제기하였고, 위 법원은 2014. 00. 00. 박PP의 주장을 일부 받아들여 이 사건 각 부동산 중 별지 목록 기재 순번 7, 8을 제외한 나머지 부동산은 BB이 원시취득하였으므로 위 각 부동산에 관한 소유자가 피고 조합임을 전제로 한 강제집행은 불허되어야 한다는 취지의 판결을 하였다.

4) 이에 박PP와 원고가 모두 항소하였는데, 항소심(MM고등법원 2014나XXXX)은 2014. 12. 2. 박PP의 항소를 받아들여 BB이 이 사건 각 부동산을 모두 원시취득하였으므로 이 사건 각 부동산에 관한 소유자가 피고 조합임을 전제로 한 강제집행은 모두 불허되어야 한다는 취지의 판결을 하였고, 원고가 상고(대법원 2015다XXXX)하였으나 2015. 00. 00. 상고기각되어 위 판결은 2015. 00. 00. 확정되었다(이하 '관련사건'이라 한다).

D. Registration of preservation of ownership and registration of provisional seizure by the defendants

이 사건 각 부동산에 관하여 피고 조합 명의의 소유권보존등기(DD지방법원 EE등기소 2004. 00. 00. 접수 제XXXX호) 및 나머지 피고들 명의의 가압류등기 등이 각 마쳐졌다.

E. Plaintiff’s credit against BB

1) 원고는 BB을 상대로 ① MM지방법원 OO지원 2000차XXXX호로 대여금의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하여 2000. 00. 00. 'BB은 원고에게 50,XXX,XXX원 및 이에 대한 지급명령정본 송달 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 25%의 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라'는 내용의 지급명령을 받아 위 지급명령은 2000. 00. 00. 확정되었고, ② MM지방법원 2005차XXXX호로 대여금의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하여 2005. 00. 00. 'BB은 원고에게 5,XXX,XXX원 및 이에 대한 2004. 00. 00.부터 지급명령정본 송달일까지는 연 24%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 지급하라'는 내용의 지급명령을 받아 위 지급명령은 2005. 00. 00. 확정되었다.

2) 피고 정FF은 BB을 상대로 ① MM지방법원 2004가합XXXX호로 양수금 청구의 소를 제기하여 2004. 00. 00. 'BB은 피고 정FF에게 234,XXX,XXX원 및 그 중 135,XXX,000원에 대하여 1998. 00. 00.부터 다 갚는 날까지, 그중 99,XXX,000원에 대하여 2004. 00. 00.부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%의 지연손해금을 가산하여 지급한다'는 조정이 성립되었고, ② MM지방법원 2005차XXXX호로 양수금의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하여, 2005. 00. 00. 'BB은 피고 정FF에게 516,XXX,000원을 지급하라'는 내용의 지급명령을 받았고 위 지급명령은 2005. 00. 00. 확정되었다.

3) Around June 2015, Defendant FF transferred each of the claims listed in paragraph (2) to the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Plaintiff was delegated by Defendant FF the power to notify each of the above assignment of claims from Defendant FF, and notified Defendant FF B B of the fact of transfer of each of the above claims by way of content-certified mail.

Grounds for Recognition

○ Defendant Union, FF: Confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

○ The remaining Defendants: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the original owner of each of the instant real estate was BB, the registration of preservation of ownership completed in the name of the Defendant partnership is null and void. Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant partnership should be cancelled, and the remaining Defendants, other than the Defendant partnership, are obligated to express their consent on the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of each of the instant real estate as a third party having interests in the registration. The Plaintiff, as the creditor of BB, seeks the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of this case and the declaration of consent thereto from the Defendants on behalf of BB.

B. The defendants' assertion

1) The Plaintiff not only transferred the claim against BB to a third party, but also the Plaintiff’s claim against BB has already ceased to exist due to the lapse of prescription, and thus, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendants by subrogation of BB is unlawful.

2) The Defendants are also creditors of BB, and since the provisional attachment decision based on the premise that each of the instant real estate was owned by the Defendant Union, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendants, who are bona fide.

3) As Defendant UG and Kang II transferred to a third party the dividend claim to be paid in the auction procedure on each of the instant real estate, the said Defendants cannot be deemed to bear any obligation on the part of the Plaintiff.

3. Determination on this safety defense

1) According to each statement in Eul evidence No. 5, although it is recognized that defendant JeongF transferred in sequence the dividend claim to the plaintiff and KimW with respect to the compulsory auction (DD District Court 2013 Mata 8313) of each of the instant real estate to the plaintiff and KimW, the plaintiff is entitled to the above dividend claim against BB, and therefore, the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's secured claim does not exist is without merit.

2) In a claim filed by a creditor against a third party by exercising the obligee’s subrogation right, the third party obligor cannot set up against the obligee any defense that the obligor has against the obligee. In principle, when the extinctive prescription of the claim has been completed, a person who may invoke it is limited to a person who directly receives the benefit of prescription, and the third party obligor of the obligee’s subrogation lawsuit cannot exercise it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da34160, Sept. 10, 2009). Therefore, the Defendants, who are the third party obligor, cannot assert the defense of the extinctive prescription period that BB, the obligor, against the Plaintiff, the obligee. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the preserved right,

4. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) the existence of the right to preserve and the need to preserve it;

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff had claims against B, and the fact that BB had been in excess of the obligation as of the closing date of the pleadings in this case, and that B did not seek the cancellation registration procedure for the registration of cancellation of each real estate of this case against the Defendant Union, there is no dispute between the parties. In the event that registration of preservation of ownership of each real estate of this case is cancelled, the Plaintiff appears to be able to secure the actual performance of the acquisition money and the loan claims through compulsory execution against each real estate of this case, and therefore, it is also necessary to seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant Union in subrogation of BB, the original acquisitor of each real estate of this case.

B. Existence of subrogation right

Where the land readjustment project executor designates a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay before a land substitution disposition and disposes of it to a third party, if the purchaser satisfies any of the requirements in the register of land delivery or the land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the purchaser shall not only have the right to exclusively use and profit from the land concerned, but also have the right to dispose of the land to a third party. Where a land substitution disposition is publicly announced after the public notice of the land substitution disposition, the purchaser ultimately occupies the land secured by the authorities in recompense for development recompense or the person registered in the register of the authorities secured by development recompense for development recompense for the land shall acquire the ownership of the land on the next day (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du636

In light of the above legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged as follows: ① Defendant Union transferred the land secured for development outlay prior to the disposition of land substitution to BB on October 0, 1997, instead of paying progress payment for the construction project under the project of this case; ② on October 00, 2001, the land secured for development outlay prior to the disposition of land substitution for development outlay was entered in BB; ② the Defendant Union transferred the land secured for development outlay prior to the disposition of land substitution for land substitution for 7,8,9 and 9 real estate to BB on October 200, according to the compulsory adjustment decision; ② the above fact of transfer in the land secured for development outlay prior to the disposition of land substitution for development outlay was entered in BB; ③ the land substitution disposition was announced on October 0, 204 on each of the real estate of this case; and ③ the real estate of this case, the real estate of this case was announced on October 0, 204, respectively.

Therefore, BB may seek implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation on each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant Union based on its ownership, and the remaining Defendants, except the Defendant Union, are the third parties having interests in the registration, and have the duty to express their consent to the registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, and the Plaintiff, the creditor of BB, can exercise the above right in subrogation.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

The Plaintiffs’ claim is seeking the declaration of consent to the registration of cancellation of ownership preservation on the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership in this case is null and void under the substantive law. As long as the registration of preservation of ownership in this case is null and void, the Defendants are obligated to declare of consent to the registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, regardless of whether the Defendants are BB’s creditors or the Defendants transferred dividends to each of the instant real estate to a third party.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion is without merit without examining the remaining points.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is decided to accept it.

It is so decided as per Disposition.