(a) Requirements for demanding a cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made by the reconciliation procedure prior to filing a lawsuit;

B. Whether the obligation to pay the secured debt and the obligation to cancel provisional registration are simultaneously performed

(a) If the registration of ownership transfer made by the reconciliation procedure prior to the filing of a lawsuit intends to file a claim for cancellation on the ground that the above telephone for the filing of the lawsuit becomes null and void, it should first be dealt with as to the validity of the settlement prior

B. Even if the principal registration made by the provisional registration procedure was made in the purport of security for claims, the obligation to pay the secured debt and the obligation to cancel the registration are not in the relationship of simultaneous performance.

Articles 431 and 206 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 536 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da490 delivered on October 18, 1962 (Kadad 8169 delivered on August 27, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 62Da491 delivered on October 25, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 81Da1209 delivered on October 27, 1967, Article 34 (1), 1030 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (75Gahap165)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On December 31, 1973, with respect to the real estate in the attached list list, the defendant completed the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as prescribed by the Gwangju District Court No. 44769 on December 31, 1973, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of provisional registration to preserve the right to claim transfer of ownership as prescribed by Article 24157 on the real estate.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The fact that the ownership transfer registration has been completed after the provisional registration of the defendant's name, such as the entry in the purport of the claim regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet, is not a dispute between the parties. However, the plaintiff's attorney completed the provisional registration of the above provisional registration of the defendant's name without any reason, and the registration of the ownership transfer of the defendant's name was completed by the prior protocol of a lawsuit that the defendant purchased on August 9, 1973, and the defendant did not have concluded the above sales contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff did not have obtained the right of representation from the plaintiff, the non-party 1 did not seek cancellation of the above provisional registration on the premise that the above provisional registration of the defendant's name was invalid, and the ownership transfer registration of the defendant's name, which was completed by the invalid protocol of settlement, is also null and void. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the provisional registration of the defendant's name was completed without any reason among the plaintiff's land, and the ownership transfer registration of the defendant's name was made without any dispute between the parties or the above cancellation procedure of a compromise.

Next, the plaintiff preliminaryly asserted that the provisional registration of this case and the principal registration of this case are 20,767,444 won of the total amount of 20,767,44 won of the non-party 2's total amount of debt set-off against the non-party 6,860,000 and sought cancellation of the provisional registration and the principal registration of this case at the same time. However, even if the provisional registration of this case and the principal registration of this case are the purport of the security of credit, the above obligation of repayment and the cancellation of the registration cannot be deemed to be in a concurrent performance relationship (the obligation of preferential performance is called the obligation of preferential performance) even if the provisional registration of this case and the principal registration of this case are made the purport of the security of credit, the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition against the plaintiff against the plaintiff.

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)