2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On August 29, 2001, Nonparty YO completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on August 27, 2001 with respect to the gold ○○○○-4 3,170 square meters, and 344-10 forest and 344-10 forest and 8,984 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On August 29, 2001, Nonparty 1 sold the instant land [12,327 square meters (3729 square meters) out of 33-1 forest land in Geum-ri, Geum-ri, Geum-ri, Ma-ri, 18,942 square meters (5730 square meters)] to the Plaintiff at KRW 550,00,00, but the down payment of KRW 50,000,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000 on September 28, 200, and the remainder of KRW 40,000,000 on October 29, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on the day of the contract, the down payment of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 to ○○ on September 18, 200.

C. On May 16, 2002, Non-party 1 did not pay any balance even after the payment date of the instant sales contract was due to the Plaintiff. Thus, on the 25th of the same month, Non-party 1 notified the Plaintiff that he would cancel the said sales contract if he would delay payment, and on the 11th of the same month, on the premise that the said sales contract was rescinded on June 17, 200, he intended to return the intermediate payment of KRW 100 million on the premise that the said contract was rescinded, but on the ground that the Plaintiff refused to receive the said payment, he deposited the deposit amount of KRW 100 million with the Seo branch of the Seoul District Court Decision 2001, the deposit amount of KRW 2201,

D. On May 23, 2002, Nonparty 1 completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on May 21, 2002, with respect to the land in this case, on the 24th of the same month, the Plaintiff completed the provisional disposition based on the decision of provisional disposition No. 2002Kahap365 with respect to the land in this case on May 23, 2002.

E. On July 26, 2005, the Simtan Agricultural Cooperative received a decision to commence the sale of real estate at the Jung-gu District Court, Goyang-gu, 2005 another 17019 as to the land in this case, and the entry registration was completed on July 28, 2005.

F. On October 18, 2005, when the above voluntary auction was in progress, the Plaintiff withdrawn the application for a provisional disposition on the land of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale of this case on October 31, 2005 with the consent of fixed○○○.

G. As a result of the above voluntary auction, the land of this case was knocked down to the Hong○ column, and on April 18, 2006, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the above Hong column, and the ownership transfer registration, etc. was cancelled ex officio.

H. On May 26, 2006, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 923,295,066 out of KRW 2,061,843,947 (including KRW 1,982,00,000 from the proceeds of sale) to be actually distributed during the above voluntary auction distribution procedure as a third acquisitor.

I. On May 31, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a final return on May 31, 2007 with regard to the successful bid of the instant land, the transfer value of KRW 1,964,540,921 (the successful bid price of KRW 1,982,00,000 - the appraised value of KRW 17,459,079 square meters per 139 square meters per ○○○○-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si, Pari-si), the acquisition value of which is 1,727,50,087 won per conversion value, and the tax base was 117,225,417 won per 234,417 won per annum, but the Defendant did not pay it within the deadline. The Plaintiff notified the amount of KRW 1,53719,296.

(j) On July 2, 2008, the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the instant land, but received the registration of transfer on October 31, 2005 in order to secure the recovery of the claim that is to be paid to Jeong-○, the former owner, and accordingly, filed a claim for correction of the Plaintiff’s transfer income tax refund on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be the transferor of the said successful bid even if the said land was subsequently adjudicated thereafter.

(k) On September 4, 2008, the defendant filed a request for the revocation of the disposition of this case with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 18, 2008, but dismissed on December 3 of the same year, since the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case, the plaintiff cannot oppose the successful bidder as the third purchaser. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff cannot oppose the third purchaser as the third purchaser. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to the transfer income from the auction of the above land, and the plaintiff filed a request for the revocation of the disposition of this case with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 18, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Evidence Nos. 1 to 9, Evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers)

Statement, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On August 29, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, which he owned, and paid the intermediate payment, but thereafter, the instant sales contract was revoked by the Plaintiff’s ex post facto acceptance of the notification of cancellation on the grounds of delay of fixed ○○○○’s remainder and withdrawal of a provisional disposition. In order to secure the payment of the purchase price, damage to forests, and the restoration construction cost, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land in the name of the Plaintiff and received a surplus from the voluntary auction procedure for the said land. Thus, it is reasonable to view the transferor as the Plaintiff’s not the Plaintiff but the transferor as the transferor. However, the instant disposition that reported the Plaintiff as the transferor is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The effect of seizure following the commencement of a request for auction is limited to the restriction on disposal of the real estate in relation to the owner of the real estate, and it does not prohibit disposal of the real estate even in relation to other third parties. Thus, even if the successful bidder in the auction procedure does not fully pay the successful bid price and acquires the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of the auction, the secondary owner may cancel the agreement with the other party. The ownership of the real estate is naturally returned to the above other party regardless of the registration. The other party who has recovered the ownership of the real estate due to the cancellation of the agreement must return the real estate to the above other party regardless of the registration. If the other party becomes an interested party in the auction procedure by proving the fact of acquisition to the auction court after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer and becomes an interested party in the auction procedure, the other party's right to receive the refund from the direct auction court as an interested party in the auction procedure shall be deemed to belong to the above party's right to claim the transfer registration of ownership under the above agreement at the time of the auction procedure.

94Nu1234. References such as Decisions

On October 31, 2005, whether the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the plaintiff on the land of this case on October 31, 2005 in order to guarantee the return of the above purchase price refund claims, even though the plaintiff decided to rescind the contract of this case with the non-party Jung-○ and the non-party Jung-○, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the registration only by the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 through 9, and there is no evidence to

(2) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the sales contract of this case on October 31, 2005 was still effective at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff as to the land of this case, and as seen earlier, the effect of seizure, which was decided upon the registration of transfer of ownership, is only to restrict the disposal of real estate against the owner of real estate in relation to the execution creditor, and does not prohibit the disposal of real estate even in relation to other third parties (see the above 94Nu1234, Oct. 31, 2005). In this case, even if the plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership for reasons of the sale of this case on October 31, 2005 after the registration of commencement of voluntary auction as to the land of this case was completed, it is reasonable to view that the acquisition of ownership cannot be asserted against the execution creditor, and it is reasonable to view that the above sale of the land of this case was transferred for sale to ○○, a legitimate acquisition of ownership through the sale of the assets subject to transfer income tax, without regard to transfer income tax.

(3) Therefore, it is reasonable that the defendant refused the plaintiff's request for correction of the transfer income tax in return for the plaintiff as the transferor, because the defendant disposed of the land in the auction procedure of delegation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff does not fall under the transferor in the above voluntary auction procedure is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.