The registration of each ownership transfer in the future of the Defendants shall be revoked as it falls under the registration of invalidity of cause.

Since the declaration of intent to complete the purchase and sale agreement on each real estate of this case was made only after the expiration of the exclusion period, it shall also be cancelled as it constitutes the registration of invalidity of cause, and each registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B, which is based on the above, shall also be cancelled as it constitutes the registration of invalidity of cause.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2013 Doz. 102457 Registration for cancellation of ownership

Korea

1.A2.B

November 2016

on April 25, 2016

1. CCC

A. As to the real estate stated in Attached List No. 1

1) Defendant A: (a) the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer completed on September 4, 1995 by the ReceivingOO; and (b) the ownership transfer registration completed on September 28, 2010 by the ReceivingOO;

2) As to the registration of transfer of ownership completed on December 11, 2012 by the receiptO on December 11, 2012, Defendant BB

1) Defendant A: (a) the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer completed on September 4, 1995 by the ReceivingOO; and (b) the ownership transfer registration completed on September 28, 2010 by the ReceivingOO;

2) Defendant BB shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed by the Receiving OO on December 11, 2012.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff currently has a taxation claim against CCC as listed in the following table. (b) The real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list was owned by CCC. CCC on September 4, 1995; (c) on the ground of a pre-sale agreement as of June 10, 1992, on the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, as the court receiptO; and (d) on the real estate listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list, the provisional registration for preserving the claim for transfer of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the “instant provisional registration”) was completed on April 7, 2010 with the court receiptO as of this case’s provisional registration as of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list; and (e) on April 12, 2010, the FF transferred the claim for transfer of ownership to Defendant A for each of the above real estate listed in the attached list No. 2000, Mar. 28, 2010.

D. On December 11, 2012, Defendant A completed the registration of ownership transfer under this Court’s receiptO with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, and under this Court’s receiptO with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2, on November 5, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking cancellation of the provisional registration of this case and each transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendants, which was based on the provisional registration of this case in subrogation of CCC for the purpose of preserving the tax claim against CCC. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since CCC did not have a financial condition, since it does not need to preserve the Plaintiff’s tax claim. In full view of the following: (a) Y, A, 7, 8, 9-1 through 4, 15-1 through 3, 15-1 through 3, 15-2, and 2-1 through 2-3, CCC’s active property is each real estate listed in the separate list 3 through 6 of the market price. Since CCC’s current positive property is real estate in proportion to the Plaintiff’s taxation obligation against the Plaintiff; (b) the maximum debt amount set forth in the separate list 3 through 6; (c) the Defendants’ debts owed to CCC for termination of the real estate claim against the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendants’s defense against C&C Co.

In the unilateral promise for sale, the right that may become effective as a result of the other party’s declaration of the completion of the pre-sale agreement, namely, the right to conclude the pre-sale agreement, if it is a kind of right to form and exercise the period of exercise between the parties, and if there is no such an agreement, it shall be exercised within 10 years from the time of establishment of the pre-sale agreement, and the right to complete the pre-sale agreement shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 203); a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration based on the pre-sale agreement has been completed.

If the right to complete the purchase and sale of real estate has ceased to exist, the provisional registration should be invalidated and cancelled (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4787, May 28, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, the right to complete the purchase and sale of each real estate listed in Schedule 1 and 2, which is held by EFF against CCC, has no agreement on the period of exercise, and the right to complete the sale and purchase of each real estate listed in the separate list 1 and 2, which is held by EF with CCC, has ceased to exist as of June 10, 192, which was later than 10 years from June 10, 2002, which was later than 10 years from June 10, 2002, the provisional registration of this case has become null and void, and as such, the declaration of intention to complete the purchase and sale of each real estate listed in the separate list 1, 2010 has expired after the exclusion period, and thus, each ownership transfer registration of this case constitutes a registration of ownership invalidation.

4. Judgment on the defense

The Defendants asserted that the provisional registration of this case is not a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration, but a provisional registration for security established for the purpose of securing loan claims against AFF with respect to CCC. When Defendant delay took over loan claims against CCC from FF, and at the same time Defendant’s transfer of the provisional registration of this case was agreed between CCC and CCC to use the provisional registration of this case as security for the above loan claims of Defendant AA at the time when the provisional registration of this case was transferred, and therefore, CCC cannot file a claim against the Defendants for cancellation of the provisional registration of this case and each transfer of ownership based on the aforesaid provisional registration of this case. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that CCC’s statement of subparagraph 1 is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement each procedure for the cancellation of the instant provisional registration and each transfer of ownership registration based on the instant provisional registration and each transfer registration based on the instant provisional registration as described in paragraph (1) of this Article. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants who subrogated to insolvent CCC for the preservation of tax claims against CCC is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.