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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. JJ and KK completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/2 share of OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O(hereinafter “the instant real property”).

B. On November 23, 1998, the defendant made a promise to sell and purchase the real estate of this case on November 21, 1998.

The provisional registration of JJ shares in the above provisional registration is completed (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case").

C. On August 28, 199, the Plaintiff seized the shares of the JJ in the instant real estate (Seongmun-gu, 1999), August 1, 2005, and August 25, 2005, and the amount of delinquent national taxes of the JJ related thereto is set forth in the following table:

D. Meanwhile, the JJ is currently in excess of its obligations.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

The right to the completion of the pre-sale agreement is a kind of right to form a contract and, if there is no such an agreement, it shall be exercised within the period of time, and if there is no such an agreement, within 10 years from the date of the establishment of the pre-sale agreement, and the right to the completion of the pre-sale agreement shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da26425, Jan. 10, 2003). According to the above findings, there is no evidence to prove that the period of the exercise has been agreed on the right to the completion of the pre-sale agreement which is the cause of the provisional registration of this case. Thus, the defendant's right to

From 10 years to 10 years, the exclusion period has expired.

However, inasmuch as the JJ does not exercise its right to cancel the provisional registration of this case against the Defendant, the Plaintiff has the right to request the Defendant to cancel the provisional registration of this case by subrogation of the JJ in order to preserve the claims against the JJ.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

① Although the Defendant changed a pre-sale into a sales contract and paid the purchase price, it was impossible for a construction business operator, etc. to exercise a lien on the instant real estate, and the period of limitation may not run as to the exercise of the right of retention. ② From among the national taxes in arrears, the transfer income tax, which was paid in arrears, was recognized as having been imposed in accordance with the officially announced value, rounded up to 20 times as 20 times, even though the JJ did not obtain gains

(3) No national tax shall be claimed after five years lapse.

B. Determination

1) We examine the Defendant’s argument ①. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant exercised the right to complete the pre-sale agreement, and there is no interruption of the period like extinctive prescription. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

2) We examine the Defendant’s argument ② Inasmuch as a taxation disposition cannot be deemed to be void as a matter of course, even if there exist unlawful grounds for revocation of the said taxation disposition, the validity of the said taxation disposition cannot be denied in the civil procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da20179, Aug. 20, 199). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s taxation disposition against the JJ is void as a matter of course, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

3) We examine the Defendant’s argument. According to Article 28(1)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, if a seizure is made, extinctive prescription for the right to collect the national tax shall be suspended. The Plaintiff’s seizure of the J’s shares among the instant real estate on August 28, 199, August 28, 2009, August 1, 2005, and August 25, 2005 is as seen earlier. As such, the claim against JJ against the Defendant was suspended by prescription. The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified.