It is impossible to oppose the defendant that the reservation to trade constitutes a false conspiracy and thus void.

In the case of seizure or provisional seizure of claims arising from legal relations formed externally by false representation, and those who seize or provisional seizure have new legal interests based on false representation, it is reasonable to view that the claims constitute a third party under Article 108 (2) of the Civil Act.

Article 108(2) of the Civil Act

2012 Requests for approval of cancellation of attachment

Park AA

Korea

January 25, 2013

February 15, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

"The defendant has expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of provisional registration of right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as "each provisional registration of this case") completed on February 4, 2010 by the Changwon District Court of Changwon District for the registration of cancellation of provisional registration of right to claim ownership transfer, which was completed on February 4, 2010 with respect to each of the real estate listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant land").

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 1997, the Plaintiff concluded a false promise to sell and purchase each of the instant land owned by it (hereinafter “instant promise to sell and purchase”) in collusion with YellowCC, the Plaintiff’s land, the Plaintiff’s land for the purpose of evading funeral execution, etc. for the purpose of evading the creditors, and made a provisional registration for each of the instant lands on the same day to YellowCC and KimE on the ground of the promise to sell and purchase each of the instant land.

B. On October 23, 2007, the YellowCC did not pay taxes, and on October 23, 2007, the director of the Central Tax Office under the Defendant’s control attached the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of each of the instant land by YellowCC, and on February 4, 2010, the registration of attachment was completed in the name of the Defendant under the title of the Changwon District Court was under the title of 1480.

C. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, while filing a lawsuit against YellowCC and Kim E-E seeking the cancellation of each provisional registration of this case with the Changwon District Court Jinwon District Court Jinwon District Court Decision 201Kadan13155, the Plaintiff concluded a false pre-sale agreement and made a false pre-sale agreement as if he had not made a pre-sale agreement, and that the pre-sale agreement is null and void, on the ground that each of the instant provisional registration was made on the basis of the pre-sale agreement.

D. On January 26, 2012, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (a service by public notice in respect of YellowCC, and a confession in respect of KimE) on January 26, 2012, and the judgment was finalized on February 15, 2012 with respect to YellowCC, and on March 7, 2012 with respect to YellowCC, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] The parties to the dispute shall have the visual facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4 to 1, 2, Gap evidence 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant, as one of the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, is entitled to seek the cancellation of seizure to an administrative agency pursuant to the relevant provisions of the law, and cannot contest its validity by civil procedure, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful. The disposition on default, which is taken as a disposition on default, is to be null and void automatically if the defect is objectively significant and obvious, and in such a case, the third party may seek the cancellation of the registration of invalidation automatically by civil procedure. And regardless of the cancellation of the registration of seizure, the plaintiff's assertion that he/she has the standing to sue, and the above ground for the plaintiff's assertion should be determined as the existence of the requested source. Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Judgment on the petition’s advice

According to the above facts, the instant reservation is a false trade reservation entered into in collusion with the Plaintiff, YellowCC, and KimE, and thus null and void as it constitutes a false conspiracy mark, and yellowCC and KimE are obligated to cancel each of the instant provisional registration to the Plaintiff ( long as the instant reservation constitutes a false conspiracy mark, and the Plaintiff’s exclusion period and assertion premiseding the existence of the right to complete the purchase and sale, and the Plaintiff’s exclusion period and assertion are without any justifiable reason). Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is a third party interested in the registration of each of the instant provisional registrations and is obligated to express his/her consent to the registration of cancellation of each of the instant provisional registrations.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) The defendant, even if the reservation of this case was invalid because it constitutes a false conspiracy mark, it cannot be asserted against the defendant who is a bona fide third party, and the defendant cannot be asserted against the plaintiff.

The reason is that there is no obligation to express the intention of acceptance with respect to the cancellation registration of provisional registration.

2) A bona fide third party, other than a party to a false indication and a general successor, who has a substantial new legal interest based on the legal relationship formed externally by a false indication, cannot oppose the invalidity of the false indication as well as the party to the false indication. The purport of the false indication is to protect a person who enters a legal relationship with a legal interest, which is unique by a separate legal cause, based on it, and the third party cannot oppose the third party in good faith. Therefore, the third party's scope is not to grasp only formally based on the legal relationship, but also should be grasped practically depending on whether the third party has a new legal interest based on the false indication (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da51258, Jul. 6, 200). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that a claim arising from a legal relationship formed externally by a false indication, which has been conspired with, is subject to new legal interest based on the false indication, and thus, it constitutes a third party under Article 108 (2) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da170413, May 28, 20004).

3) The facts that the instant trade reservation entered into between the Plaintiff and YellowCC and KimE are invalid as it constitutes a false conspiracy mark as seen earlier, and the Defendant is a seizure right holder who seized the right to claim ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate of YellowCC, a claim arising from the instant trade reservation, and the Defendant is a third party under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act, which has a new legal interest based on the instant trade reservation, and the third party under Article 108(2) of the Civil Act is presumed in good faith unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1321, Mar. 10, 2006). The Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant by the invalidation of the instant trade reservation (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da1321, Mar. 10, 2006).

4) Therefore, the defendant has no obligation to express his/her consent to the registration of cancellation of each provisional registration of this case to the plaintiff, and the above argument by the defendant is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.