근저당권말소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts are based on this part of this Court’s reasoning: “The attachment” (hereinafter “this case’s attachment disposition”) following the second 9th of the judgment of the court of first instance; “The second 10th of the second 10th 10th 10th 10th 106 hereinafter “the following”) is the registration of the attachment in this case.
Except for addition of "each addition, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, and this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “the disposition on default by the director of the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office at the regional tax office
B. Determination 1) The criteria for determination are as follows: (a) the registration of attachment, which was made as a part of a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, was paid in arrears unless there are grounds for invalidation as a matter of course in the disposition on attachment; or (b) even if the seizure claim becomes extinct due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, registration can be made only by the commission of the administrative agency along with the report on the cancellation of attachment and the cancellation of the registration; and (c) the filing of a request for registration of cancellation in civil procedure against the administrative agency is unlawful as it seeks cancellation of the seizure disposition by means of civil procedure against the administrative agency. Provided, That if an administrative disposition is void as a matter of course, it cannot be effective as an administrative act from the beginning; and (d) any person whose invalidation of the disposition can be contested at all at any time; and (e) the court is not bound by the relevant administrative disposition, and thus, it is justifiable to seek removal of the execution based on the disposition on default as a matter of course,