Seoul Central District Court 2013Kahap8248 ( October 14, 2013)

Since the pre-contract by false representation of a conspiracy is null and void, there is no obligation to consent the Defendants to cancel provisional registration.

The plaintiff cannot set up against the defendants with the cancellation on the premise that the promise to sell and purchase of this case is valid due to the invalidity of false conspiracy, so the defendants cannot be deemed to have a duty to express their consent with respect to the cancellation of provisional registration of this case.

2013Na201902. Indication of consent intention on the registration of cancellation of provisional registration

00AA

Republic of Korea and 1

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap8248 Decided June 14, 2013

July 17, 2014

September 18, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked in the purport of the purport of the claim and appeal. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the defendant's Republic of Korea will, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the plaintiff, and the OO district court Leecheon Registry on January 6, 2005, the right to claim for ownership transfer registration completed by the OO on January 6, 2005 will express its consent for the cancellation registration.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 5, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case"), as stated in the purport of the purchase and sale reservation (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase reservation of this case"). On October 31, 2007, the Defendant Co., Ltd. filed a provisional registration of this case on April 24 and April 19, 2008 (O district court's registry office's receipt of the provisional registration of this case on October 31, 2007), and the Plaintiff filed a provisional registration of this case on April 24, 2008 (OO's receipt of the provisional registration of this case on April 24, 2008) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the provisional registration of this case was cancelled on April 4, 2008, and the provisional registration of this case was cancelled on April 19, 2010.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff rescinded the instant provisional registration due to the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the obligation to pay the purchase price, and the Defendants asserted that they have the duty to express their consent to the cancellation registration of the instant provisional registration. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4-4, the Plaintiff sent a notice of cancellation of the instant provisional registration notice to the effect that the Plaintiff would cancel the instant provisional registration when he/she fails to perform his/her obligation to pay the purchase price by December 10, 2007, by content-certified mail, in a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the instant provisional registration against the ChoO on the ground that the instant provisional registration was cancelled, and that there was a decision in lieu of the adjustment of the contents to cancel the said provisional registration in the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of the instant provisional registration on the ground that the instant provisional registration was cancelled.

B. As to the above, the defendants asserted that the pre-sale agreement of this case is invalid as it constitutes a false conspiracy, the following circumstances are stated as follows: (i) the pre-sale agreement of this case is stated as being paid on January 5, 2005, the purchase price amount of KRW 600 million on the date of the pre-sale; (ii) the pre-sale agreement of this case was made on January 6, 2005; (iii) the pre-sale agreement of this case, which is asserted as the party to the pre-sale agreement of this case, did not clearly specify the process of determining the purchase price, the timing of payment, and the specific method of payment; and (iv) the plaintiff did not have any dispute over the pre-sale agreement of this case, and there was no concern that the pre-sale agreement of this case constitutes a pre-sale agreement of this case.

Thus, under the premise that the reservation of this case is valid, the plaintiff can not be asserted against the defendants on the ground of the cancellation. Thus, the defendants cannot be deemed to have a duty to express their consent with respect to the cancellation of provisional registration of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.