Where there is no direct evidence, the extent of indirect facts sufficient to recognize a false declaration of intention of conspiracy;

The seller and the buyer were in the marital relationship between the seller and the buyer in the South or in the internal relations, and the buyer were well aware of and participated in the litigation between the seller and the plaintiff, and the seller was at the risk of being subject to compulsory execution if the seller had any property in his/her name after the default checks. The seller's fault in the most sold real estate was living in the real estate and exercised ownership. Unless the sales contract was prepared in the document, it can be acknowledged that the sales contract between the seller and the buyer was made by a false declaration of intention even if not directly evidence.

Article 108 of the Civil Act

Central Public Official in Limited Partnership Corporation (Attorneys Lee Ha-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

may 6, 1970

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 68Do7612 delivered on April 17, 1969

The original judgment shall be revoked.

(1) (1) On July 10, 1968, Defendant 1 registered on July 10, 1967, the Seoul Civil District Court, Youngpo District Office, Youngpo District Office No. 18120 of the attached list, for the purpose of preserving the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the purchase and sale reservation, and the registration of transfer of ownership on July 10, 1967, issued on January 17, 1968, for the purpose of protecting the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the purchase and sale reservation;

(2) On July 16, 1968, by the same registry office No. 32931, Defendant 2 implemented the procedure for registration of cancellation of provisional registration to preserve the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the purchase and sale reservation with Defendant 1 on June 20 of the same year.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in the first and second instances.

Text 2, paragraph 3 of this Article

The same shall apply to the order.

1. On the other hand, the judgment of the court below 20,000 won was rendered 10,000 won and 50,000 won per annum 60,000 won per annum 10,000 won per annum 6,00 won per annum 10,000 won per annum 50,000 won per annum 6,00 won per annum 10,000 won per annum 60,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 9,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 10,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 9,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 1,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 1,000 won per annum 6,00 won per annum 16,000 won per annum for the above real estate.

(A) Defendant 1 had been living together with Nonparty 1 at the same time as the Nonparty’s children in the roof-dong and Cheongpadong-dong branch for a long time, and Defendant 2 had a relationship with Defendant 2 with Defendant 2.

(B) As above, Defendant 1 was living together with the Nonparty and was well aware of the monetary lending relationship between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, as well as the process of the Nonparty’s agreement on the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Nonparty for sale security such as evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the Nonparty’s litigation on cancellation of registration No. 6, and was also related to the collection of the Nonparty’s claim against the Plaintiff.

Defendant 2 also knowingly known the security due to the lending of money to the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, and the details and result of the judgment of the court of final appeal after the judgment against the Nonparty was rendered.

(C) The content of No. 4, which was signed by Defendant 1 on May 5, 1965 in relation to the agreement between the Nonparty and the Plaintiff, provides that the registration of ownership transfer for sale security shall be made in the name of Nonparty 1, and all disposition shall be prohibited without the Plaintiff’s consent.

(D) On July 3, 1965, Nonparty 1 issued a date check 59 times from July 3, 1965 to the lower end of August 27, 1965, which was 59 times from the date of issuance, but was refused to pay in entirety due to the lack of deposit, while Nonparty 1 was detained and was subject to a criminal punishment of suspended execution for two years from May 16, 198 on the charge of violating the Illegal Check Control Act.

(E) In the above criminal case, Nonparty 1 made a statement to the effect that, inasmuch as there is concern that if the land of this case is left in his name due to the default of the number of shares, it would be difficult to attach the creditor who has reported the change of family name, it would be difficult to fulfill the obligation to return ownership to the Plaintiff after the next day, it would be difficult to avoid the above seizure, and that he would not make any disposition prior to the time of repayment of the Plaintiff’s obligation without the Plaintiff’s consent, and that he received the Defendant’s letter that he would directly return ownership in the event of the repayment of the above repayment of the provisional registration against Defendant 1, and that there was such danger as above.

(f) Defendant 1 presented to the court a guarantee of guarantee that the Defendant is liable to pay the unpaid amount within six months for the non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s failure to recover on December 11, 1961 in the Defendant case of violation of the above Illegal Check Control Act.

(G) On July 22, 1965, before the date of the issuance of the above non-party 1’s checks, the non-party 1’s real estate in this case and other real estate owned by the non-party 1, the non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 34’s Dong-dong (number 1 omitted) and 35’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 16’s property.

(h) Nonparty 1 testified with respect to Defendant 1 that there was no obligation other than the amount claimed by the Defendant, and that there was no other property sold to that Defendant except for this real estate. According to the Defendant’s reply, Nonparty 1 assessed the market price of only the instant real estate in the amount of 4,850,000 won on July 10, 655.

(E) The No.D.’s real estate is the real estate held by Nonparty 6, the Nonparty’s omission from around 8 years ago, and the Nonparty, even after each of the above real estate and the instant real estate had been registered, exercised external ownership by exercising external ownership, such as a discussion with Defendant 1 on boundary surveying or a boundary dispute with a person constructed in a neighboring place.

(j) In full view of the facts above, Defendant 1 did not prepare a sales contract, etc. prior to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer by asserting that he purchased the instant real estate. In full view of the above facts, Nonparty 1 pretended to have a false debt against Defendant 1, who is the husband of the year, for the purpose of evading compulsory execution on the said real estate from many creditors due to a large-scale default on checks recognized earlier, and thus, in collusion with each other, went through a provisional registration of Defendant 1 on the part of all the real estate owned by the non-party, including the instant real estate for the reason of the most trade, and Defendant 2 also knew of the above circumstances, it can be recognized that the provisional registration of the instant real estate was filed for the reason of the most trade, and that Defendant 2 also knew of the above facts, and contrary to the above recognition, Defendant 3, No. 3 (Receipt), No. 9 (Receipt), No. 10 (No. 114) evidence No. 10, No. 14, and evidence evidence testimony of Nonparty 1 is inconsistent with the above evidence.

Thus, since the provisional registration of each provisional registration and principal registration of the order entered in the name of Defendant 1 are completed by the declaration of intent of a prior agreement, the defendants are obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation of each of the above registrations, so the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified. Since the conclusion is different from the original judgment, it shall be revoked, and the costs of litigation shall be borne by the defendant who has lost the judgment.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)