Whether a person who made a provisional disposition of prohibiting disposal against a person registered as the owner at the time of the provisional registration on any real estate for which a provisional registration for preserving the right to demand a transfer of ownership has been made, may thereafter oppose the person who made the principal registration.

Even if there has been a provisional disposition against the person registered as the owner at the time of the provisional registration from a third party on any real estate for which a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer has been made, if the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration has been made, the priority order for the provisional registration is in the order of provisional registration. Therefore, the above provisional right holder cannot oppose the person who made the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration completed prior to the provisional registration and the person who received the ownership transfer registration

Articles 509 and 510 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 6 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da1923, 1924 delivered on March 9, 1976 (Article 719(22) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 719(22)1082, 12169 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 24(24)1 and 534No9058)

Kim Fixed-Number

Park Doo

1. The execution of provisional disposition by the Defendant as the Dongjak-gu Seoul District Court Registry No. 54032, Nov. 26, 1982, against the real estate recorded in the attached list based on the original copy of the decision on provisional disposition of real estate No. 82Ka13926 against Non-party Kim Jong-tae was rejected.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

With respect to the above real estate entered in the separate list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case"), the defendant, on November 24, 1982, was ordered to dispose of it by the Seoul District Court support 82Ka13926, and on the 26th of the same month, the fact that the provisional registration was executed by the entrustment of the above support with the Seoul District Court support 54032, and there was no dispute between the parties, and that the provisional registration was completed under Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4, each of the above evidence No. 1, 3, and 3 (each judgment), and the above provisional registration was completed for the purpose of preserving the ownership transfer. The real estate of this case was originally owned by the defendant. The defendant sold it to Kim Hwang-so on September 20, 1982, and received the ownership transfer registration for the above provisional registration from the above 201, which was accepted by the above 14th of the above provisional registration for the reason that it was against the plaintiff 1's claim to dispose of this case.

On September 21, 1982, the Defendant sold the instant real estate at KRW 16,00,000 to the above Kim Young, and received the down payment of KRW 3,000,000 on the day, and KRW 6,500,000 from the intermediate payment of October 21 of the same year, and KRW 6,500,000 from November 15 of the same year, but only received the down payment and the remainder payment after borrowing the instant real estate as collateral, and first completed the registration of ownership transfer in the above Kim Young, upon the request of the above Kim Young, and first received the down payment and the remainder payment after borrowing the money as collateral, and completed the registration of ownership transfer before the expiration of the above agreement. Since the above contract was cancelled on November 16 of the same year, the above transfer registration is invalid because the above part and the ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s title, which was made on the ground of this reason, are not consistent with the substantive relations, and even if the above provisional registration was revoked by the Defendant’s claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above provisional registration.

Therefore, the execution of provisional disposition against the real estate of this case by the defendant on the basis of the previous decision of provisional disposition against Kim Young-ran, after the non-party division completed the principal registration on the basis of the above provisional registration, it is unfair as it was executed on the real estate owned by the other party, in relation to the above part or the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of execution of the above provisional disposition which interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership, which is the last owner, shall be accepted as well as the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost.

Judges Cho Soo-ok (Presiding Judge)