Busan District Court 2012 Gohap21594 (O4. 17)

The invalidity of a title trust agreement shall not be set up against the third party.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The third party with the opposing power referred to in Article 4 (3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act refers to a person who has a new interest with him/her on the basis that the trustee is a real right holder, including not only the person who has acquired a real right, such as ownership or mortgage, but also the seizure or provisional seizure creditor, and not asking the third party's good faith or bad faith.

2013Na50749 Indication of Consent

1.GA 2.ub

1. SaltCC 2.The Busan Metropolitan City DDR 3.Korea

Busan District Court Decision 2012Gahap21594 Decided April 17, 2013

October 24, 2013

November 21, 2013

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

(a) As to each real estate listed in Schedule 1, 2, and 3:

1) As to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on November 19, 2007 by the Busan Busan District Court, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, the Republic of Korea declared an intention of each acceptance, with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on November 19, 207

2) As to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on May 16, 2006 pursuant to the receipt No. 18398 of the Busan District Court, Defendant CCC, Busan District DD, and Republic of Korea, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, the declaration of intention for each acceptance is made.

B. As to real estate listed in paragraph 4 of the attached list:

Defendant SCC, Busan Metropolitan City DDD, and Republic of Korea, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, the Busan District Court, will each accept the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed under No. 15255 on April 21, 2006.

2. Purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the part that seeks to express their consent below shall be revoked.

(a) As to each real estate listed in Schedule 1, 2, and 3:

1) As to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on November 19, 2007 by the Busan Busan District Court, Busan District Court, Busan District Court, the Republic of Korea declared an intention of each acceptance, with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration that was completed on November 19, 207

2) As to the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed by the Busan District Court Central District Court No. 18398, May 16, 2006, Defendant CCC and the Republic of Korea shall express their intention of each acceptance.

B. As to real estate listed in paragraph 4 of the attached list:

As to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration which was completed on April 21, 2006 by the Busan District Court Busan District Court Busan District Court Busan District Court, the Republic of Korea shall express its intention of each acceptance.

[1] The first instance court rejected the part of the plaintiffs' claim for each acceptance of the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as to the real estate stated in paragraph (4) of the attached list, which was completed by the Busan District Court No. 18398 on May 16, 2006, and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as to the real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the attached list, which was completed on April 21, 2006 by the Busan District Court Branch Office of Busan District Court No. 1525 on April 21, 2006, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Busan District Court Down-si, the defendant Down-si, the defendant CratCC, and the Republic of Korea's claims against the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed appealed with respect to the above part of the lawsuit against the defendants, i.e., the part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants (hereinafter referred to as "subject to adjudication").

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the decision to use this case are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment that is newly asserted by the plaintiffs in the trial, the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part, and therefore they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (In the trial, the plaintiff is not a third party with opposing power as referred to in Article 4 (3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act with respect to the title trust of this case). The majority opinion is repeated in the first instance court to the effect that "The defendant is not a party with opposing power as referred to in Article 4 (3) of the Real Estate Real Name Act," and even if considering the allegations and reasons corrected by the plaintiffs in the trial, the defendant is a person who completed the registration of seizure or provisional seizure based on each registration of this case made in the title trust of this case, and the defendant can oppose the plaintiffs on the ground that it constitutes a third party as referred

2. Determination on addition

A. Although the plaintiffs accepted the plaintiffs' claims through the legal brief dated January 28, 2013 in the first instance trial and expressed their intention to accept each registration of cancellation, the court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Dental was disregarded by the court that recognized the whole plaintiffs' claims, and this is against the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Act in which the party's principle applies.

B.1) Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the registration of seizure of Defendant DDR is valid as a result of an in-depth examination of the legality of the imposition of local taxes, the attachment related to the disposition of arrears, and the opposing power of Defendant DDR on July 17, 2013 at the trial of the first instance and the written reply submitted by Defendant DDA as of January 28, 2013 at the trial. Therefore, it is difficult to say that Defendant DDR’s claim for seeking the plaintiffs’ declaration of consent is accepted the claim, and the consent is expressed at the court of first instance and the date of the trial of the first instance pursuant to Article 148(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Defendant DDR’s written reply as of January 28, 2013 at the trial of the first instance and the second instance on February 27, 2013, Defendant DDR’s written reply as of February 1, 2013 at the trial of the first instance and the first instance on July 13, 2013.

2) However, recognition and recognition of a claim under the Civil Procedure Act is a unilateral statement against the court where the defendant is a person whose claim for lawsuit is reasonable, and is made by attending the date for pleading or the date for preparatory pleading. However, Article 148(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when the non-Appearance party has made an expression of his/her intention of refusal in the document where the non-Appearance party is a statement and has obtained an authentication by a notarial office, it shall be deemed that the acceptance and acceptance of the claim is constituted in accordance with the purport of the recognition and acceptance of the claim. Thus, it is evident that the contents of the above preparatory document and reply are the purport of recognizing the claim of the plaintiffs. Although the above preparatory document and reply were made by each statement, they are not certified by a notarial office, it cannot be deemed that the failure of the claimant was constituted

3) To such end, the court shall express its intent contained in the above documents submitted by Defendant DDA.

In accordance with the contents, it is impossible to render a judgment that merely accepts the plaintiff's claim, and as a result of an examination on the merits, it is impossible to accept the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant Down. Although it is contrary to the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Act, the conclusion that it is contrary to the declaration of intention of the appellant made by Defendant DDA through the above documents shall not be deemed to be contrary to the so-called "party principle".

C. Therefore, the above assertion by the prior plaintiffs on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.