The invalidation of false indication of a conspiracy may not be asserted against a bona fide third party in the registration or record.

The provisional registration of right to claim a transfer of ownership is made in disguise of the conclusion of a reservation for sale, and thus constitutes invalidation as it constitutes a false conspiracy, but the invalidation cannot be asserted against a third party acting in good faith and the good faith of a third party is presumed, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the registration of seizure by a third party interested

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Gohap 1649 Of note, the provisional registration for transfer of ownership is cancelled, etc.

Park AA

BB 2 other than

July 17, 2012

July 24, 2012

1. Defendant B’s transfer of a promissory note from the Plaintiff on August 14, 2008; the date of issuance on August 14, 2008; the delivery of one promissory note consisting of the issuer B, Defendant B; and Defendant BD on August 22, 2008, at the same time, the Seoul East Eastern District Court (Seoul East Eastern District Court)’s registration office for the transfer of ownership was completed under No. 0000 on August 22, 2008.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant BB and each claims against the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and Korea are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of litigation, 1/2 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant B, and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, and Korea, by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, and the defendant B shall cancel the provisional attachment registration made on August 22, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case") by the Seoul East Eastern District Court (Seoul Eastern District Court) registration office No. 0000 on August 22, 2008, and the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund shall cancel the provisional attachment registration made on March 3, 2008 with respect to the provisional registration of the above right to claim for ownership transfer, and the defendant shall cancel the attachment registration made on November 22, 201 with respect to the registration of the above right to claim for ownership transfer on November 22, 201 (the plaintiff claimed against the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and the defendant Republic of Korea for the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration and the attachment registration made on the provisional registration in this case, but it shall be determined that the defendant seeks the cancellation of the registration in accordance with Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act).

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 2008, the Seoul East Eastern District Court received on August 22, 2008 the right to claim the transfer of rights under Defendant BB’s name (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) and registered the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of rights under Defendant B’s name (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”).

B. As to the provisional registration of the instant case, the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund filed for provisional registration of the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 81069, Nov. 3, 2008, and the Defendant Republic of Korea filed for provisional registration under the Seoul East Eastern District Court registration No. 73177, Nov. 22, 2011, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 (including the number, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

In order to avoid the Plaintiff’s lending of the real estate as security, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant BB at any time by making the provisional registration of this case on the ground of the registration of this case (hereinafter “the provisional registration contract of this case”), and the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the provisional registration of this case at any time, and accordingly, made the provisional registration of this case to the Defendant B with respect to the real estate. The Plaintiff is obligated to terminate the provisional registration contract of this case by the lawsuit of this case, to request the Defendant B to cancel the provisional registration of this case, and the Defendant B is obligated to cancel the provisional registration of this case, and the Defendant B is obligated to cancel the provisional registration of this case, and the provisional registration of this case has been made with respect to the provisional registration of this case, and the Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and the Defendant Korea, who have agreed to cancel the provisional registration of this case.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB

Since the fact that the Plaintiff and the DefendantB concluded the instant provisional registration agreement with the Plaintiff to conclude the instant provisional registration, even though they had not entered into the instant provisional registration, is without dispute between the Plaintiff and the DefendantB, and that the Plaintiff made the instant provisional registration to the Defendant B, as seen above, the instant provisional registration was invalid based on false agreement, and thus, the DefendantB is obligated to cancel the instant provisional registration. In response to the conclusion of the instant provisional registration agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 00 to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the instant provisional registration agreement, and thus, the instant provisional registration would be cancelled at the same time upon the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 00 upon the completion of the instant provisional registration agreement, and thus, the instant provisional registration would have to be cancelled at the same time by applying mutatis mutandis the instant provisional registration to the Plaintiff, and it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff would have agreed to pay KRW 00,000 to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the instant provisional registration would not have been issued at the same time before the date of entry into the instant provisional registration.

B. Determination on the claims against Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and Defendant Korea

As seen above, the provisional registration of this case should be cancelled, and since the provisional registration of this case was made with the provisional registration of the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and the provisional registration of the defendant Republic of Korea, and the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and the defendant Republic of Korea constitute a third party interested in the registration, the provisional registration of this case must be sent back to the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund and the defendant Republic of Korea in order to cancel the provisional registration of this case. On the other hand, whether a third party interested in the registration has a duty to send back the provisional registration of this case is determined by the substantive legal relationship, and as seen above, the provisional registration of this case is determined by the substantive legal relationship. The provisional registration of this case was made with the intent to send back the provisional registration of this case, even though it was not actually made, and it cannot be asserted against the third party acting in good faith pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Civil Act, and it is presumed that the third party's good faith and the third party's good faith have been presumed that the provisional registration of this case should be proved in bad faith, and that the plaintiff's claims for provisional registration of this case and the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund are insufficient.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant B, the defendant Credit Guarantee Fund, and the request against the Republic of Korea are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.