[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee] The Association of Korea Telecommunications (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Jin-law, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 19, 2011

1. The Defendants perform the procedure to change the Defendants’ owner’ name in the report on extension, etc. stated in the attached Form and the report completion certificate to the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Occurrence of a duty to implement the procedure for change of name;

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 3-4, Gap evidence 6 and 7, and the whole purport of oral arguments:

(1) The present status of the building extension and its subsequent status

(A) The Defendants and Nonparty 1 are co-ownership owners of 1/3 shares of the underground floor and 6th floor of the ground (a total of 2,092m2.81m2, hereinafter “the existing building of this case”) on the lots outside Seongbuk-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and 9, respectively. On November 11, 1993, the Defendants and Nonparty 1 completed the extension report [the extension report of this case] on the aggregate of 2,102.34m2m2 (hereinafter “the extension report of this case”). The Defendants’ shares in the extension of this case are 193-158m2, and completed the extension report of this case on April 1, 1994, after submitting the report and the report completion certificate, etc. “the extension report” (hereinafter “the extension report, etc.”).

(B) At present, the instant extension is unregistered on the ground of a violation of the Building Act, such as construction line intrusion, sunshine infringement, etc. during the extension process.

(2) Conclusion of each contract on the share of the instant extension between the original and the Defendant

(A) On February 20, 2009, the Defendants entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of KRW 100,000 of the share of the instant extended object (425 square meters) for the sale of KRW 50,60 of the share of the instant extended object (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff as “the sales contract for the extension of unregistered real estate” (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). The Defendants obtained the certification as to the instant sales contract with the Seocho Law Firm, etc. No. 322 on the same day from the same day. The main contents of the instant sales contract are as follows.

▷ 매매목적물 : 이 사건 증축물 중 5층 60평, 6층 40평 등 총 100평(원고가 기존에 피고들로부터 임차하여 사용하고 있는 면적에 40평을 더한 면적. 이 사건 증축물 지분인 약 425평의 일부에 해당함)

▷ 매매대금 : 80,000,000원(5,250만 원은 임차보증금과 상계하고, 중도금 500만 원은 본 공증 완료 후 2일 내에 지급하며, 잔금 2,250만 원은 공증시 첨부하지 못한 피고들의 인감증명이 증빙서류로 보완될 때 즉시 지급한다)

▷ 기타 특약사항

- The defendants shall register the extension of this case as soon as possible so that the plaintiff can exercise his/her property rights, and if the defendants delay the procedure of the completion inspection without any justifiable reasons, there is no objection to arbitrarily sell the extension of this case's ownership shares by the plaintiff's discretionary authority when the purchase is requested due to the "Promotion Area Redevelopment Project" at the time of not towing (Article 4).

- Where the Defendants intend to sell their shares inevitably due to the circumstances of the Defendants, they shall notify the Plaintiff of the fact in writing, and it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to sell all shares owned by the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiff as prescribed in Article 4.

- In managing the entire extension of this case, separate agreement between the Defendants and the Plaintiff shall be made, and the rent incurred by the Plaintiff in managing the Defendants’ shares shall be settled on the last day of each month as collected and paid to the Defendants.

- After the Plaintiff purchased the instant extension, the Defendants shall provide administrative support in cooperation to the Plaintiff in maintaining the time and purchasing old maintenance related to the said extension.

- The Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff until the subject matter of sale is legally transferred to the Plaintiff due to the use of the Si/Gu and the penalty for violation of the Building Act, which the competent authorities imposed on the Defendants.

(B) In addition, the Defendants entered into the following contracts (hereinafter “instant subsequent contracts”) with the Plaintiff on the title “Agreement on the Transfer of Unregistered Real Estate” on the date of entering into the instant sales contract. Of the shares in the instant extension, the Defendants entered into the instant sales contract with respect to the remaining 325 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining shares”), which is the remainder remaining after the sale through the instant sales contract, among the shares in the instant extension, and obtained the certification of each of the instant subsequent contracts with the head of Seocho Law Firm, etc. on the same day. The main contents of the instant subsequent contracts are as follows:

▷ 양도인 : 피고들, 양수인 : 원고

▷ 양도인과 양수인은 2009. 2. 20.자 공증인가 서초법무법인 등부 2009년 제322호에 따른 후속조치로서 양도계약 체결에 합의한다.

▷ 이 사건 증축물 지분인 약 425평 중 100평은 원고가 이미 이 사건 매매에 의하여 매입을 완료하였고, 나머지 이 사건 잔여지분은 피고들이 원고에게 무상으로 양도하여 위임관리토록 한다.

▷ 이 사건 증축물 지분을 제3자에게 매각하고자 할 상황이 조성될 경우 원고가 일괄매각하여 그 대금을 일부 피고들이 지명한 자에게 지불하도록 협의 처리한다. 단 매각 대금 처리기준은 평당 100만 원 선으로 쌍방 간 원칙을 정하고, 이에 일정한 금액 이상 받을 때에는 매도 증액 부분에 대하여는 원고가 이 사건 증축물을 관리하여 준 공로 대가금조로 원고에게 차액을 임의로 귀속하는데 재량권을 부여한다.

▷ 이 사건 매매계약과 이 사건 후속계약에 따라 원고가 이 사건 증축물의 부지인 시유지, 구유지, 사유지를 매입함에 있어 피고들은 일체의 행정지원에 최대한 협조한다.

B. Nature of each contract of this case

In full view of the purport of the above facts and evidence No. 1 to No. 6, and part of No. 7 of the above No. 2, the defendants and the non-party 1 owned the existing building 1/3 shares each of the extended building sites of this case (number No. 1 omitted, lot No. 2 omitted, lot No. 3 omitted) 4 were extended on the premise that the plaintiff purchased the extended building sites of this case from Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Seongbuk-gu, and the defendants did not pay the purchase price of the above land to the non-party 1, No. 5, and No. 2 of the extended building site of this case. 6 of the extended building site of this case. 6 of the extended building site of this case. 6 of the extended building site of this case which the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 did not complete the construction completion inspection and the construction completion inspection. 2 of the extended building site of this case to the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 did not complete the construction completion inspection. 3 of the extended building site of this case.

In light of the above facts, since the Defendants were not in a position to lead the purchase contract of the site of the instant extended object necessary to legally own the ownership of the instant extended object because they did not pay indemnity, etc. for the legal exercise of rights to the portion of the instant extended object in an unregistered state at the time of entering into each of the instant contracts, the Defendants sold part of the instant extended object (100 square meters) to the Plaintiff, who possessed a part of the instant extended object as a lessee at the time of resolving the unstable state in the exercise of ownership, on condition that partial (325 square meters) would receive KRW 325 million, and ultimately, the Defendants would sell the entire extended object of this case to collect funds by selling it. However, in addition to the total 100 square meters sold to the Plaintiff by the method of sale, the Defendants would not have any other way to lead the Defendant in the sale contract, which is the owner of the instant extended object, to maintain the ownership of 325 square meters in its original name (such title is unregistered, and thus, the Defendants would not have any other way to permit the Defendant to sell the instant extended the instant extended land.

C. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants should transfer to the Plaintiff the external ownership title of the instant extension portion pursuant to each of the instant contracts, and the fact that the instant extension is currently unregistered is necessary for the change of the name of the building owner with respect to the building permit to preserve ownership in accordance with the Registration of Real Estate Act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da60229, Dec. 27, 2007). The Defendants are obliged to perform the procedures for the Plaintiff to change the Defendants’ owner’s name in the instant extension report, etc. and the report completion certificate to the Plaintiff as a performance of the duty to transfer ownership of the instant extension portion in an unregistered state.

2. As to the defendants' defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the sales contract of this case was rescinded as a preparatory document on April 25, 2001 by the Defendants, since the amount of KRW 2.5 million out of the sales amount of KRW 80 million for 100 out of the shares in the instant extension was not paid.

The plaintiff and the defendants agreed to offset the amount of KRW 52,50,000,000 out of 100,000 of the share of the extended object of this case against the plaintiff's claim for return of the lease deposit against the defendants, in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 8-1, and 2 of the evidence No. 8-2. In light of these circumstances, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff paid the defendants the total amount of the purchase deposit by paying the amount of KRW 500,000,000 after the intermediate payment on February 5, 2009, and KRW 22,50,000,000 from March 11, 2009. In light of these circumstances, each of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone cannot be deemed to have not paid the plaintiff KRW 2.5 million out of the purchase price. Thus, the defendants' defense, based on the premise that the amount of KRW 2.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not perform the agreement on the management of the instant extension and the separate notarial act, and did not perform the obligation to settle rent, and that the instant subsequent contract was rescinded by the Defendants’ declaration of intent to cancel the contract on March 7, 2011.

As seen earlier, the agreement on the management of the extension of this case and the provision on separate notarial acts and the provision on the settlement of rent are stated in each contract under the contract under the contract of this case. However, each of the above provisions is included in the contract of this case, but does not include the follow-up contract of this case claimed separately from the cancellation of the contract of this case.

Furthermore, even if the above assertion by the Defendants should be considered as a whole to the effect that the rescission of each of the instant contracts should be considered, according to the evidence No. 2, it can be recognized that Article 1 of the subsequent contracts of this case contains the contents of the subsequent contracts of this case as follow-up measures pursuant to the notarial act of this case under Article 1 of the subsequent contracts of this case, and that the subsequent contracts of this case were notarized as to the subsequent contracts of this case as seen earlier. In light of the above, there is room to view that the subsequent contracts of this case and the agreement on the management of the instant extended goods of this case were concluded and notarial act

According to the court's fact-finding results with respect to the settlement of rent, even if the plaintiff received a total of five million won from the lessee of the instant extended object from August 2009 to January 201, it is difficult to conclude that the defendants continued to have a negative position on the validity of the instant subsequent contract, including filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the instant subsequent contract against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid the total of five million won from the lessee of the instant extended object from around July 2009 to around September 201, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 12 through Gap evidence 13-3, and Gap evidence 16-1 and 2, the defendants paid the extended object at the expense of the Corporation from around September 2009 to around August 1, 2009, and it is difficult to conclude that there was a ground for deducting the rental fee from the lessee's management expenses for the instant extended object at the expense of the Corporation.

In addition, considering the fact that the Defendants had already filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking invalidation of the follow-up contract of this case, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for revocation of the follow-up contract of this case by pointing out only the Plaintiff’s action of this case.

Ultimately, the defendants' defenses are without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Han-chul (Presiding Judge)