Whether a foreign court may file a claim for confirmation of invalidity of a sales contract and registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the ship has been awarded a successful bid with respect to the ship where the registration of ownership transfer has been made (negative)

Where a foreign court has filed a claim for the confirmation of invalidity of a sales contract and the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a successful bid before the plaintiff had already completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a ship, the registration of ownership transfer shall be valid registration in accordance with the substantive relationship, even if the above sales contract is invalidated, if the ship has been awarded a successful bid. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking the confirmation of invalidity of a sales contract concluded with the defendant in order to seek the registration of ownership transfer on the above ship, and there is no dispute with the defendant as the other party. Thus, the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the sales contract on the above ship is illegal as there is no interest in confirmation, and the lawsuit seeking the ownership transfer transfer should no longer be maintained as long as the plaintiff has already completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the successful bid, and it is unlawful as the plaintiff has already completed the registration

Articles 226 (Institution of Lawsuit) and 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Pung National Fisheries Co., Ltd. (Attorney Im Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Namyang Co., Ltd.

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed respectively.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On October 11, 1994, the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 11, 1994 with respect to the vessel listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter the instant vessel) is invalid, and the Defendant rendered a judgment to the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on October 4, 1994 with respect to the instant vessel.

1. On October 5, 1994, the Plaintiff claimed that the Montreal court of Montreal rendered a successful bid of US$ 250,000 and the Defendant implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on this. Unlike the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on October 11, 1994 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the instant vessel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sought the confirmation of invalidity of the sales contract concluded on October 11, 1994, and the Defendant filed a claim for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on a successful bid on October 5, 1994.

2. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of each of the instant lawsuits.

A. Even if the above sales contract becomes null and void with respect to the ship of this case as the plaintiff's assertion, if the ship of this case was awarded a successful bid in a foreign court, the transfer registration of ownership shall be deemed valid registration in accordance with the substantive relation (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da791 delivered on July 22, 1980).

B. Whether the lawsuit seeking nullification of the sales contract is legitimate

A lawsuit for confirmation is to seek confirmation against the other party to the legal relationship disputing it by means of a judgment on the existence of the right or legal status at issue against the other party to the legal relationship so as to solve anxietys or threats existing in the plaintiff's right or legal status, and it is to be permitted as a legal action for confirmation in the event that there is no other effective and adequate means than the judgment of confirmation is recognized. If the grounds for registration were to be erroneous, the registration is valid if it conforms to the substantive relationship even if the grounds for registration were erroneous. Thus, the plaintiff has no legal interest to seek confirmation of invalidity of the sales contract concluded with the defendant in order to seek ownership transfer registration procedure based on a foreign court's successful bid, and the defendant, the other party to the above sales contract, who is the defendant, does not dispute that the above sales contract is null and void, and thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit for seeking confirmation of invalidity of the sales contract concluded with the defendant on October 11,

(c) Whether a lawsuit filed for registration of ownership transfer is legitimate;

Unless there are special circumstances, a person who has already completed the registration of transfer of ownership shall no longer need to maintain a lawsuit seeking the registration of transfer, and the plaintiff has already completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale of the ship of this case as the plaintiff's assertion and the registration of this case is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship. Thus, since the plaintiff has already completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the successful bid on October 4, 1994 with respect to the ship of this case, the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the successful bid on October 15, 1994 is deemed unlawful because it has already completed the registration of transfer of ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da1178

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)