The right to the completion of a contract for sale has become extinct at the expiration of 10 years from the date of the reservation.

Since the right to conclude a pre-sale ceases to exist at the expiration of the exclusion period at the expiration of 10 years from the date of the pre-sale, consent necessary for the procedures for cancellation of provisional registration

Article 564 of the Civil Act

2018 Mada 13648 Cancellation of Provisional Registration

LAA

BB et al.

April 23, 2019

May 21, 2019

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant BB carried out the procedure for cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration completed under Canada***************** the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration completed under the Changwon District Court's Changwon District Court's Changwon Branch on June 14, 2006 with respect to the area of 1,319 square meters preceding

B. The defendant Republic of Korea has expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of the provisional right to claim ownership transfer registration mentioned in the above paragraph (a).

2. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB is borne by the Defendant BB, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by each party.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 25, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the grounds of sale on the same day with respect to 403-17 m20m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 14, 2006, Defendant BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) completed the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on June 13, 2006.

C. On September 8, 2010, Defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration regarding Defendant BB’s right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the unilateral promise for sale, the right that the other party to the purchase and sale becomes effective by expressing his/her intent of the completion of the purchase and sale reservation, that is, the right to conclude the purchase and sale reservation is a kind of right to form a contract and the period of exercise between the parties, if there is no such an agreement, it shall be exercised within 10 years from the time of the establishment of such agreement, and the right to conclude the purchase and sale reservation shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 200

B. According to the above facts, Defendant BB completed the provisional registration of this case on June 13, 2006 on the ground of the pre-sale agreement, and thereafter Defendant BB had no evidence to deem that it exercised the pre-sale agreement, the pre-sale agreement expired at the expiration of the exclusion period on June 13, 2016, when 10 years have passed since the date of the pre-sale agreement. Therefore, the provisional registration of this case was invalid, and as such, Defendant BB is obligated to implement the procedures for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case, and as long as the provisional registration becomes null and void after the termination of the pre-sale agreement, Defendant BB is a third party interested in the registration, and the Republic of Korea, which seized the above right to claim ownership transfer registration, has the obligation to consent necessary for the procedure for cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case

3. Judgment on Defendant BB’s assertion

As to this, Defendant B decided to purchase the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, and completed the instant provisional registration by paying down payment of KRW 71,820,000 and intermediate payment of KRW 80,000,00 to the Plaintiff. After that, Defendant B’s failure to engage in the business of Defendant B subsequently asserted that the Plaintiff should return the intermediate payment to Defendant B because it is too harsh to vest in the part payment even though the contract was terminated due to Defendant B’s failure to engage in the business but the intermediate payment was reverted to the Plaintiff. However, even based on the above assertion itself, Defendant B’s right to claim the return of the intermediate payment against the Plaintiff is not created since the contract was terminated due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff B’s failure to engage in the business. Moreover, the cancellation of the instant provisional registration is difficult to be deemed to bring about an excessive harsh result to Defendant B, and therefore, Defendant BB’s

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.