2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. C on March 22, 1996, registered the ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) on February 27, 1996.

B. On August 8, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for provisional attachment with respect to each of the instant real estate with a loan claim against C as a preserved right, and received the decision of provisional attachment as of August 22, 2017 by the Seo-gu District Court Branch Decision 2017Kadan1831 on August 22, 2017, and on the same day, the entry of provisional attachment was registered on each of the instant real estate.

(hereinafter the above provisional seizure is referred to as the "provisional seizure of this case").

On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the division of property on May 11, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant filed an application for provisional attachment with respect to each real estate of this case without a loan claim against C and received a provisional attachment order with the Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2017Kadan1831. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the provisional attachment order of this case should be dismissed.

B. Generally, an acquirer of ownership after the provisional attachment cannot oppose the execution creditor of the compulsory auction based on the provisional attachment, and there is no reason to dispute the falsity and the most likely of the title of the debt which is the basis of the compulsory execution.

However, even if the execution of provisional seizure is formally an execution procedure for securing claims, in cases where it is evident that such execution was conducted by anti-social acts that are not protected by the law, the validity of such execution cannot be recognized as it is. Therefore, an acquirer of ownership after such provisional seizure can seek the exclusion of such execution in the compulsory execution procedure.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 96Da14494 delivered on June 14, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 96Da1470 delivered on August 29, 1997, etc.).