(a) The validity of the registration of a third party in the name of the person to be subrogated, made on the basis of the registration in the name of the third party after the provisional disposition prohibiting by subrogation

B. Permission of a third party’s lawsuit by a possessor of real estate after the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction (affirmative)

(c) Where the transferor of real estate acted in collusion with a third party for a compulsory auction by using the name of debt under the most recent claim, whether the transferee of the real estate can seek the exclusion of the execution thereof (affirmative)

A. If the subsequent purchaser of the real estate completed the registration of the provisional disposition against the transferor by subrogation of the transferee in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the transferee and the seller, the right to preserve shall not be included in the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the transferor and the preservation of the subsequent purchaser's right to claim ownership transfer registration against the transferee. Therefore, even if the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the name of the transferee from the transferor and another registration has been completed accordingly, the registration does not violate the provisional disposition against the above prohibition of disposal.

B. Generally, a person who acquired ownership after the registration of the decision on commencement of compulsory auction cannot set up against an execution creditor, and even if the right which is the basis of compulsory execution is not eligible to bring an objection against the execution creditor, even though it is the right which is acquired after the execution, if it can be set up against the execution creditor, the right holder may bring an action of demurrer against the third party for the exclusion of the execution.

C. A purchased real estate from the bank in the name of B, and B agreed to transfer the ownership to B immediately, and B refused to implement the transfer procedure against B in order to evade the above obligation to transfer the ownership to B, and even if B refused to implement the transfer procedure against B, B filed a lawsuit against the said bank for transfer registration of ownership against B, Eul filed a lawsuit against the said bank for transfer registration of ownership and received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of B, and subsequently allowed B to carry out a compulsory sale of ownership by subrogation in the name of B by using the most debt under the name of B, and C actively participated in the case, which is an anti-social act that cannot be protected by law, and the same legal principle is applied to where B actively participated in the act of breach of trust by a seller in the above compulsory execution procedure, and as a third party (owner) it may seek the exclusion of the enforcement.

A. Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da397 delivered on Nov. 25, 1986, Sept. 29, 1988, 87Ma476 delivered on Sept. 29, 198 (Dong)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 83Na1102 delivered on November 6, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal as stated in the supplemental appellate brief and supplemental appellate brief are also examined.

With respect to No. 1:

If a subsequent purchaser of real estate has completed the registration of a provisional disposition against the transferor by subrogation of the transferee in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the transferee and the seller (hereinafter the transferee), such right to preserve shall not be included in the preservation of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the transferor and the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the subsequent transferee. Therefore, even if the transfer registration of ownership has been completed in the name of the transferor from the transferor, and another registration (in this case, the registration of the application for compulsory auction) has been completed in the name of the transferee, it cannot be deemed a violation of the disposition of prohibition of disposal (see Supreme Court Decision 86Da397 delivered on November 25, 1986). Therefore, in the contrary of the judgment of the court below, the argument that there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the scope of the effect of provisional disposition cannot be accepted.

In the case of this case, as seen earlier, as determined by the court below, the non-party ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party") (the transferee) filed a lawsuit against the non-party commercial bank (hereinafter referred to as the "bank") that is the transferor, and obtained a final decision in favor of the court, and the plaintiff, the subsequent purchaser, against the transferor (the bank), lost (e.g., rejection of the lawsuit) the part of the claim against the transferor for subrogation of the ownership transfer registration (which seems to be based on the final judgment against the non-party bank). Therefore, the argument of the part on the premise that the plaintiff received a final decision in favor of the plaintiff was registered by the defendant on behalf of the non-party bank (the supplementary

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

With respect to the second ground:

In general, a person who acquired ownership after the registration of the decision on commencement of compulsory auction cannot set up against an execution creditor, and it is not possible to bring a lawsuit against the execution creditor, and even if the right which is the basis of compulsory execution is acquired after the execution, if the right holder can set up against the execution creditor, the right holder can bring a lawsuit against the third party to seek the exclusion of the execution.

In the case of this case, according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from his own funds with the name of the non-party and the non-party agreed to transfer the ownership thereof to the plaintiff immediately. The non-party failed to perform the procedure of ownership transfer, unlike the original agreement, and the plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition on December 31, 1975 against the bank on behalf of the non-party and filed an application for provisional disposition registration on the non-party on behalf of the non-party, and the non-party rejected the plaintiff as an independent party when the non-party filed a claim for ownership transfer registration against the bank. The plaintiff again filed a lawsuit seeking ownership transfer registration in sequence with the non-party as a joint defendant, but the plaintiff was tried to retire the non-party only because it overlaps with the above lawsuit filed by the non-party first, and the non-party was also awarded the final judgment in favor of the non-party in the lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against the bank, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 26, 1980.

In addition, according to the records of the case, the plaintiff's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is deemed to have a large amount of debt for the defendant to evade the non-party's obligation of transfer registration of ownership. The defendant's assertion that the non-party actively participated in the above series of acts of breach of trust by the non-party. Thus, it is evident that the non-party refused to perform the transfer procedure against the plaintiff in order to evade the non-party's obligation of transfer registration of ownership, and even though the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the bank against the non-party, and completed the transfer registration of ownership by subrogation using the defendant's most debt with the final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and at the same time, if the defendant actively participated, it can not be protected by law even if it conforms to the procedure of compulsory execution, which is contrary to the law, and it should be viewed to have been null and void by the buyer's active participation in the sale contract in the procedure of double selling and the buyer's active participation in the procedure of compulsory execution (see the judgment of the court below 185).

Although the court below did not confirm the existence of such a fact, and held that even if the title of debt is the basis of the compulsory execution of this case in collusion with the non-party and the defendant for evading the duty of ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff, the above title of debt cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, and therefore, it cannot be a ground to deem that the compulsory execution of this case return to the execution of the third party's property. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of compulsory execution and Article 103 of the Civil Code, which affected the conclusion of the judgment or by misapprehending the legal principles of compulsory execution and Article 103 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)