Since a registration by document forgery, etc. is a registration of invalidation without any cause, a registration of restitution of cancellation shall be made automatically.

Since a registration by forgery, etc. of a document is invalid without any cause, a declaration of intention of acceptance must be made on the registration for restitution of cancellation.

2015 Doz. 941 Indication of Consent

Hyo

Republic of Korea and 3

June 11, 2015

September 24, 2015

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant ○ Bank shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd., ○○san Incorporated, ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, Korea, and Defendant ○○ Bank’s successor-based limited company specialized in the ○○○○○○○ District Court’s registration office with respect to real estate indicated in the separate sheet, which was revoked and registered under No. 24874 on August 2, 2013 by the same registry office and completed as of July 2, 2013 pursuant to the receipt of No. 20091 on July 2, 2013.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd., ○○○ Incorporated, ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, Korea, and Defendant ○○ Bank’s successor to ○○○○○ Bank is each borne by Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd., ○○ Incorporated, ○○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, Korea, and Defendant ○○ Bank’s successor to ○○○ Bank, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○ Bank is borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of this Article and Paragraph (2) of this Article, ○○ District Court ○○○ registry office ○874, which was cancelled and registered on August 2, 2013, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention of acceptance for the registration of the restoration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed under No. 20091, Jul. 2, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate indicated in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) with respect to the real estate owned by ○○○ District Court on July 2, 2013, as the receipt of 20091 on July 2, 2013, the maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000, the debtor’s senior ○○○○○, and the Plaintiff as a mortgagee (hereinafter “the instant registration of the establishment of a mortgage”).

B. As to the instant real estate, the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed as of August 2, 2013 as of the ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office, which was received on August 2, 2013, as of July 31, 2013. The registration of cancellation of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed as of August 2, 2013. The registration of the establishment of a mortgage of this case was completed under the name of Defendant Incorporated Incorporated Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○san”), which was received on August 2, 2013 as of August 2, 2013 as of the maximum debt amount, KRW 72,00,000,000, debtor ○○○○ and Defendant ○○ Bank, respectively, as of the receipt on August 2, 2013 by the same registry office.

C. In addition, on December 23, 2013, the provisional attachment registration under the name of Defendant ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation was completed as of December 23, 2013 as of December 23, 2013, and on May 27, 2014, the attachment registration was completed under the name of Defendant Republic of Korea (the competent authority: the National Tax Service’s tax office) as of May 27, 2014.

D. On December 4, 2014, Defendant ○○ Bank entered into an asset acquisition agreement with Nonparty ○○ Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Asset Management”) to sell an insolvent loan claim including a claim against ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Bank’s loan management. On December 26, 2014, the Intervenor succeeding to the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Intervenor”) registered an asset-backed securitization plan with the Financial Supervisory Service pursuant to Article 3 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on December 29, 2014, pursuant to the Asset-Backed Securitization Act, an asset-backed securitization plan on the above insolvent loan claim was registered with the Financial Supervisory Service on December 29, 2014, to acquire all rights and obligations under the asset acquisition agreement, and registered the asset acquisition agreement with the Financial Supervisory Service pursuant to Article 6(1)1 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act on January 13, 2015.

E. On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking recovery registration of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case, which was revoked by Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan00000. On the ground that the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case was completed by documents prepared against the Plaintiff’s will, the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on November 26, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 18, 2014.

F. On May 29, 2015, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No000, the High Court rendered a judgment of conviction against the crime of forging private documents, the crime of uttering of a false investigation document, the crime of false entry into public electronic records, and the crime of uttering of a false entry into public electronic records, etc. on the ground that the certificate of termination of the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security in the name of the Plaintiff was forged, and thus revoked the appeal by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits of the Defendant ○ Bank

In order for the Plaintiff to seek consent to the registration of the restoration of the establishment of the instant mortgage on ○○ Bank, Defendant ○ Bank concluded an agreement on the acquisition of assets, including ○○○○○ Bank’s non-performing loans, to the ○○○ Bank’s non-interested parties, and thus, Defendant 2 transferred ○○ Bank’s right to collateral security to the ○○○○ Bank pursuant to Article 8 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○ Bank was unlawful because it seeks consent to the ○○ Bank’s non-interested parties. In full view of the entries and arguments in ○○○ Bank’s 1 through 3, and 2, the purport of each of ○○ Bank’s ○○ Bank’s ○○○ Bank’s ○○○○ Bank’s ○○○ Asset Management and Asset Transfer Agreement, which had no interest in the ○○○ Bank’s ○○ Bank’s ○○○ Asset Management and Asset Transfer Agreement, which had no interest in the ○○○○ Bank’s.

3. Determination on the remaining claims against the Defendant and the Intervenor succeeding to the Defendant

The registration of cancellation in a third party’s column of interest in the registration under Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is a person who is formally recognized by entry in the registry that is likely to cause damage, and whether such third party bears the obligation of acceptance is determined by whether the third party bears the obligation of substantive law in relation to the right holder of the registration of cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da25510, Jul. 24, 2008).

According to the above facts, Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd., ○○ integrated mountain, ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, Korea, and Defendant-Succession Intervenor are currently owners of the instant real estate on which the establishment registration of the instant neighboring real estate was completed, collective security holders, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding real estate, and are recognized as having concerns over causing damages due to the cancellation of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring real estate. As such, the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring real estate constitutes a third party having interests in the registration, and as such, the Defendants are liable under the substantive law to consent to the restoration of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring real estate because it is invalid without any cause. Accordingly, Defendant Agricultural Co., Ltd., ○○ integrated mountain, ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, ○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, Korea, and Defendant-Succession Intervenor is obligated to express their consent to the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the instant neighboring real estate to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant ○ Bank is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○ Concentratesan Co., Ltd., ○○○ Credit Guarantee Foundation, Korea, and the defendant succeeding intervenor is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.