Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Jeon Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 17, 2019

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2018Da110036 Decided December 20, 2018

1. Upon the claim that the court changed its exchange in this court, the defendant transferred to the plaintiff the right to pay the deposit money stated in the separate sheet and notified that he transferred the above claim to the Republic of Korea.

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

1. Purport of claim

It is the same as the order (the plaintiff was seeking to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, and the lawsuit was changed to the transfer and notification of the right to claim the payment of deposit.)

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning to be stated in the instant case is as follows, given that the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the instant case, and such reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

▣ 제1심판결문 제2면 제14행 중 “서유권이전등기청구권 가등기” → “소유권이전등기청구권 가등기”

▣ 제1심판결문 제3면 제14행 아래 추가

G. On May 2, 2019, the Korea Highway Corporation deposited KRW 568,559,000 as Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 1121 in 2019, and accepted the instant real estate on May 9, 2019. On the same day, the registration of the instant collateral security was cancelled. Meanwhile, on April 16, 2019, the Defendant was issued an order for the seizure and assignment of the claim by subrogation for KRW 30,00,000 out of the above expropriation compensation, as shown in the attached list in the attached list No. 2019,424.

▣ 제1심판결문 제3면 제15행 중 “갑 제1호증” → “갑 제1, 3, 4호증(가지번호 포함)”

▣ 제1심판결문 제3면 제19, 20행 → “원고는 이 사건 부동산이 수용되기 전에 소유자였고, 피고 명의의 이 사건 근저당권 등기가 그 피담보채권의 소멸시효 완성으로 인하여 말소되어야 하므로, 피고는 원고에게 별지 목록 기재 공탁금출급청구권(이하 ‘이 사건 공탁금출급청구권’이라 한다)을 양도하고 대한민국에게 위 채권을 양도하였다는 취지의 통지를 할 의무가 있다.”

▣ 제1심판결문 제4면 제3 내지 6행 → “ 위 서울동부지방법원 2007가단27411호 판결 이 소외 2의 추완항소에 따른 위 서울동부지방법원 2008나2571호 판결 에 의해 취소되어 2009. 4. 9. 확정되었으므로, 위 2009. 4. 9. 이후에 마쳐진 소외 1, 소외 3, 소외 4 및 원고 명의의 각 소유권이전등기가 무효인바, 원고는 이 사건 부동산의 소유자가 아니므로 피고에게 이 사건 공탁금출급청구권의 양도 및 그 통지를 구할 수 없다. 또한 소외 2는 위 2007가단27411호 재판 전에 이미 소외 1로부터 위 가등기 말소에 필요한 가등기권리증 등 필요서류를 전부 교부받았고 이에 따라 위 가등기 원인인 통정허위표시에 따른 1999. 2. 22. 체결된 매매예약이 취소된 것이므로, 피고는 위 통정허위표시의 취소 후에 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 원고 등에 대하여 위 통정허위표시의 무효로써 대항할 수 있다.

▣ 제1심판결문 제4면 제17, 18, 19행 중 “따라서 선의의 제3자에 대한 관계에 있어서는 허위표시도 그 표시된 대로 효력이 있다( 대법원 1996. 4. 26. 선고 94다12074 판결 등 참조)” → “따라서 선의의 제3자에 대한 관계에 있어서는 허위표시도 그 표시된 대로 효력이 있다( 대법원 1996. 4. 26. 선고 94다12074 판결 등 참조). 한편 통정허위표시도 당사자 사이에서 이를 철회할 수 있고, 통정허위표시를 철회한 당사자들은 허위표시를 유효한 것으로 믿게 할 만한 외관까지 제거된 이후에 이해관계를 맺은 제3자에 대하여는 철회로써 대항할 수 있다고 할 것이다.”

▣ 제1심판결문 제5면 제5행 아래 추가

“On the other hand, the mere fact that Nonparty 2 received documents necessary for the cancellation of provisional registration such as the above provisional registration certificate from Nonparty 1 is insufficient to recognize that the false declaration of agreement with the above provisional registration was revoked or withdrawn, which is the cause of the provisional registration, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. In addition, according to the above basic facts, the above judgment of Seoul East Eastern District Court 2008Na2571 was revoked as the above judgment became final and conclusive, the above judgment of 2007Gadan27411 was revoked, but the provisional registration in the name of Nonparty 1 on February 23, 1999, which was registered as the cause of the pre-agreement on February 23, 199, the provisional registration in the name of Nonparty 1, which was the date of the above ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1, the above ownership transfer registration, and according to this, even if the above false declaration was withdrawn between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1, the above defendant still cannot be deemed null and void as the above provisional registration.”

▣ 제1심판결문 제5면 제15행 아래

“Indivates.”

Therefore, the defendant cannot set up against the plaintiff with the invalidity of false conspiracy, and the secured claim of the right to collateral of this case in the name of the defendant expired with the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the amount equivalent to the secured claim of this case was deposited in accordance with the defendant's above bond seizure and assignment order, so the defendant is obligated to transfer the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case to the plaintiff and to notify the plaintiff that he transferred

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which was changed to exchange in this court, is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning (the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of mortgage right, which is the old lawsuit, was withdrawn from the exchange change of the lawsuit filed in this court, and the judgment of

[Attachment]

Judges Yang Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)