Where registration is not by the intention of the person entitled to registration, it shall be void.

Where registration is cancelled without the intention of the person entitled to make a registration and the cause of cancellation is null and void, a third party who has an interest in the registration is obligated to give consent necessary for the procedure of recovery registration without asking about his/her good faith, bad faith, existence of negligence, or seriousness of the profit gained by the person entitled to make a registration due to the registration of recovery.

National Tax Collection Act

Daegu District Court 2014Kadan104169

Park*

Korea

December 19, 2014

February 13, 2105

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant AA, Inc., carried out the procedure for each recovery registration of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (No. 6506 of the receipt on January 15, 2013, which was revoked and registered under the receipt No. 0000 on October 0, 2013, for the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage (No. 6506),

B. Defendant BBB, Defendant Republic of Korea (competent East Daegu Tax Office), Defendant CCC, and Defendant DD have expressed their intent to accept the above recovery registration.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant AA (hereinafter “Defendant AA”) (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant AA (hereinafter “Defendant AA”), the Suwon District Court completed the registration of the establishment of each of the neighboring mortgages registered as the maximum debt amount of KRW 180,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 against the maximum debt amount of January 15, 2013, Defendant AAAA, and the mortgagee as the Plaintiff.

B. Before each of the instant collateral mortgages was created, each of the instant real estates was set up on November 2, 2012 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1 billion, Defendant AAA, and Defendant CCC, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee.

C. On April 23, 2013, the registration of the creation of each of the instant collateral mortgages was made by contact with the Sungwon District Court registry office.

No. 62632, each of the above dates was cancelled on the grounds of termination (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the following areas").

D. After the registration of establishment of each of the instant real estates was cancelled, (1) regarding each of the instant real estates

On August 13, 2013, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant BB (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) that was based on purchase and sale reservation on August 9, 2013, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed (2) on December 10, 2013 under the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Republic of Korea”), (3) on April 23, 2013, the registration of seizure was completed under the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant”), (4) on April 23, 2013 as the receipt of the above registration office under the name of Defendant CCC (hereinafter “Defendant Republic of Korea”), and (4) on June 4, 2013, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was completed under the name of the said registration office under Article 86580 on June 4, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the preceding units of this case is made at the time of Defendant AA or

On the other hand, EE, which was the representative director, had the custody of the information on completion of the registration and the notice on completion of the registration of the establishment of each of the instant mortgages in the name of the plaintiff, the representative director forged the power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff as if he had not been delegated by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, although he did not have any delegation from the plaintiff on the cancellation of each of the instant mortgages in the name of the plaintiff, and submitted forged power of attorney in the name of the plaintiff to the public official in charge of the registry, and submitted the forged power of attorney and the certificate of termination prepared based on

Therefore, Defendant AA, the owner of each of the instant real estate at the time of the registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of each of the instant real estate at the time of the registration of cancellation of the establishment of the creation of each of the instant real estate. After the registration of cancellation of the establishment of each of the instant real estate was completed, Defendant BB, the Defendant Republic of Korea, Defendant CCC, and Defendant DD, who became the right holder on the registration of each of the instant real estate, have a duty to accept the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the neighboring real estate as a third party with interest in

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 5 and 6, and No. 3-1 and No. 2 of Eul:

On April 22, 2013, GGF’s business affairs were delegated by Defendant AAA’s representative director EE, Defendant AAE with the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant mortgages, and the above EE issued the certificate of completion of the establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring mortgages in its custody to the said GGG, and the said GGG prepared the power of attorney and the certificate of termination in the Plaintiff’s name upon the request of the EE and delivered the certificate to the EE. Following the following fact, the EE requested that the procedure of cancellation be carried out promptly while delivering the power of attorney and the certificate of termination affixed with the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the Plaintiff to GG. At that time, GGG attempted to contact the Plaintiff to directly verify the intent of cancellation of the right of collateral security, but failed to contact with the Plaintiff, and it can be acknowledged that the EE gave the Plaintiff a confirmation of the Plaintiff’s resident registration number directly contact with the Plaintiff.

2) According to the above facts, the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of each of the instant units of establishment is deemed voluntarily cancelled by EE without the Plaintiff’s delegation who is the person responsible for registration. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant AA is obligated to perform the procedure for the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of each of the instant units of establishment registration, which was registered for cancellation by the Suwon District Court No. 00000 on October 00, 2013, with respect to the instant real estate, to the Plaintiff, and to incur damage as a person likely to incur damage as a third party in the registration recognized in the form of the existing registry, which is recognized by the registration of cancellation, and thus, the Defendant BB, Defendant CCC, and Defendant DD are obligated to express their intent of each consent to the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of each of the above units of establishment.

3. Determination as to the assertion by Defendant AA and Defendant BB

A. Defendant AA and Defendant BB’s assertion

AAA, BB shall not be eligible for any of the following reasons:

This asserts that the plaintiff did not have the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of recovery in the order, and as a result, the defendant BB did not have the obligation to express his consent to the above registration of recovery.

1) The Plaintiff consented to the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant neighboring establishments by EE.

2) The registration of the establishment of each of the instant establishments was made by the Plaintiff, the representative director of EE, HH

In order to secure the claims invested in the Industrial Management Co., Ltd., Defendant AA is irrelevant to that of Defendant AA. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff invested in the Industrial Management Co., Ltd. or the circumstances leading up to the creation of each of the instant collateral security interests, the instant collateral security agreement has no effect against Defendant AA because it was known or could have known that the Plaintiff knew or could have known of such fact.

In addition, the Plaintiff also concluded the instant mortgage contract due to monetary transactions with HH Asset Management Co., Ltd., and was well aware that there was no connection with Defendant AAA, and there was no intention to have Defendant AA bear obligations. Therefore, the instant mortgage contract constitutes null and void since it was based on a false declaration of intent agreed with the Plaintiff and EE.

Therefore, even if the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of each of the instant units was made illegal, the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant units is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relationship.

B. Determination

1) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff consented to the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration of each of the instant mortgages

The plaintiff, prior to the filing of the suit of this case, defendant AA, EE, and Court

The fact that the notarial deed of a debt repayment contract was made out between the Plaintiff and EE on June 21, 2013, which was after the procedure for registering the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case was completed, and on June 21, 2013, between the Plaintiff and EE on June 21, 2013, that the notarial deed of a debt repayment contract bears a loan obligation of KRW 21 million against the Plaintiff is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by the notarial deed of 1, 2, and 2-A's 2.

However, in light of the circumstances such as the video of No. 8 and the notarial deed of debt repayment contract of this case were made only at the time when two months or more elapsed since the cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff consented to the registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of a mortgage of this case by only the above facts and the statements of No. 1 through No. 2 of No. 3 of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. This part of the allegation by Defendant AA and

2) The assertion that it is a registration consistent with the substantive relations.

Since registration is a system to publicly announce the legal relationship of reality as it is, even if registration of cancellation is unlawful, when it conforms to the substantive relationship, registration of cancellation cannot be made (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2203, May 26, 1987).

Therefore, according to each of the records in this case, as to whether the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of each of the preceding units of the instant case is consistent with the substantive relations, the Plaintiff is recognized as having invested KRW 100 million in the business of selling the HH assets by the EE, which was the representative director of Defendant AA, at the time of January 2013, where the representative director of Defendant AA was the representative director of the HH assets management.

However, even if the representative director of a corporation did not undergo a resolution of the board of directors with respect to external transactions, such resolution of the board of directors is merely an internal decision-making of the company. Thus, if the other party to the transaction knew or could have known that there was no resolution of the board of directors, the transaction shall be effective. In this case, the other party to the transaction knew or could have known that the resolution of the board of directors was not made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3649, Jul. 28, 2005), Gap evidence 3, and evidence No. 7 evidence No. 1 to 100,000 commercial sales business located in Gyeonggi-do where the plaintiff or defendant AA had been under way, and the other party to the transaction knew or could not have known that the other party to the transaction knew or could not have known of the resolution of the board of directors, the fact that each of the instant resolution of this case was made to establish the H 150 billion won stocks of the plaintiff at the time of sale or sale.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff also concluded the instant mortgage contract by means of a monetary transaction between HH asset management corporation and the Plaintiff. As to whether the said monetary transaction was well aware of having no connection with the Defendant AA, and whether the representative director of the Plaintiff had no intent to assume obligations against the Defendant AA, the act performed within the scope of his/her representative director’s right of representation is effective as an act of the Plaintiff, even if the representative director abused his/her authority for the purpose of pursuing his/her own or a third party’s interest regardless of the company’s profit. However, if the other party to the act knew or could have known the representative director’s intention, the act becomes null and void against the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da18059, Aug. 29, 1997; 2003Da34045, Mar. 26, 2004; 2003Da34045, Mar. 21, 2004).

4. Determination on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant DD

Although the above Defendants asserted to the effect that the registration is a bona fide third party who trusted the presumption power of registration, in cases where the registration of cancellation is cancelled without the intention of the person entitled to make a registration and such cancellation is null and void, a third party who has an interest in the registration is obligated to accept the procedure for recovery registration without asking the third party's good faith, bad faith, existence of negligence, or seriousness of the loss received by the person entitled to a registration due to the registration of restoration, and the profit gained by the person entitled to a registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 197). Thus, the above Defendants' assertion is without merit without any need to further

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.