Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

July 1, 2005

Gwangju District Court Decision 2003Gadan1479 Delivered on September 17, 2004

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by all the plaintiffs of the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant expressed his/her intention to accept the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 14258 on June 29, 1999 with respect to forest land No. 27,669 square meters in Jeonnam-gun, Nam-gun (detailed lot number omitted) for forest land No. 27,669 square meters.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty 2 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 2”) originally filed a registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by Nonparty 1, on June 14, 1999.

B. On the basis of Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the Defendant completed the attachment registration on December 11, 2001 under the receipt No. 24694 on the instant land.

C. On November 28, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the registration of transfer of ownership (case number omitted) against Nonparty 2 in the Gwangju District Court in subrogation of Nonparty 1, and won the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 28, 2002 to the effect that “Non-Party 2 shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer entry in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff,” and the above judgment was finalized on December 31, 2002.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On December 30, 1995, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer; (b) sold the instant land without completing the registration of ownership transfer; (c) at the same time, paid the sale balance, the Plaintiff omitted the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff on the instant land; and (d) agreed from Nonparty 1 to complete the registration of ownership transfer in

(2) On December 30, 1996, the Plaintiff and the non-party 2 rescinded the above sales contract. However, the non-party 2 acquired all rights from the Plaintiff, by deceiving the non-party 1 to obtain necessary documents, such as seal impression, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the instant land. The Defendant completed the above seizure registration on the instant land.

(3) In a lawsuit filed against Nonparty 2 by subrogation of Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment against Nonparty 2 that “Nonindicted Company 2 shall perform the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

(4) Therefore, the defendant, who made a seizure registration on the land of this case, has a duty to express his/her consent on the registration of cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 2 company, as a third party interested in the registration of seizure.

B. Determination

Even if there was a favorable judgment in favor of the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of real estate, provisional attachment or compulsory auction conducted prior to the judgment cannot be deemed to be an interested party who is obligated to consent in the procedure of cancellation of registration based on the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da847 delivered on July 10, 1979). The attachment registration of the land in this case under the name of the defendant was completed on December 11, 2001, which is prior to the judgment becomes final and conclusive (case number omitted) and therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to be an interested party obligated to consent in the procedure of cancellation of registration based on the above judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)