2. BB-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

3. Korea;

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

Cheong-gu Office

NonpartyCC Construction Co., Ltd. (*****************, address: ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○ Dong). Defendant AAA reconstruction and improvement project partnership has conducted the procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation completed on December 22, 2008 with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to ○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry office as to 1/2 shares, and Defendant BB Gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Defendant Korea has expressed their intention of acceptance for the cancellation registration of registration of ownership preservation.

A. Defendant AAA rebuilding improvement project association (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AB association”) is a reconstruction improvement project association established for the housing reconstruction project on the ground of 312-254, 307-38 of the red control-dong, Seoul. On May 26, 2007, 16 households among the 34 households of 'AAA rebuilding apartment' that will be newly built between Non-Party ACC Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC Construction"), a contractor, provided for 18 households, including the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), and agreed to sell it in lots to cover the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).

B. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment of the real estate on 1/2 shares ofCC Construction as at 2000 by the ○○ District Court 2008Kahap000, against the instant real estate, with the purport that “CC Construction holds 1/2 shares of the instant real estate.” On December 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment of the real estate on 1/2 shares ofCC Construction among the instant real estate with the competent district court 2000. On December 18, 2008, the said court entrusted the provisional attachment registration to the ○○ District Court ○○○○ District Court ○○○○○ registry ○○○○○, etc., on the provisional attachment registration of the instant real estate, which is an unregistered building. The registrar, ex officio on December 22, 2008, preserved the portion of the instant real estate by the Defendant Cooperative 1/2 shares each 1/2 shares.

C. Defendant BB-gu imposed tax on Defendant Cooperative, registration tax and property tax, etc., among which the amount of 76,546,90 won was unpaid. Defendant BB-gu seized the instant real estate in accordance with the Local Tax Act for the collection of unpaid taxes, and Defendant Republic of Korea imposed comprehensive real estate tax, etc. on Defendant Cooperative. However, the instant real estate was seized in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act to collect unpaid amount of 11,344,660 won among them.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant union provided 16 households among the 34 households of newly built apartment units to CC Construction on May 26, 2007 to its members, and the remaining 18 households, including the real property, agreed to meet the construction cost through sale after the original acquisition by CC Construction and sale. However, the preservation registration of the defendant union completed in the future of the defendant union without the consent of CC Construction, is null and void since it violates the agreement of this case and is also null and void. The above Defendants are obligated to consent to cancellation. Meanwhile, the plaintiff is the creditor holding the CC Construction's investment and right to demand reimbursement, and the CC Construction is in excess of its current liability due to its poor management and does not exercise all rights related to the Newly constructed apartment units. Thus, the plaintiff exercises the above rights in subrogation of the defendants of CC Construction.

B. Determination

(1) In principle, a person who constructed a building in his own effort and materials acquires the ownership of a newly constructed building at the original time. However, in the construction contract of a building, even if the contractor completes the construction in his own effort and materials, if the contractor and the contractor agree that the ownership of the completed building will be reverted to the contractor by obtaining a construction permit under the name of the contractor and the contractor, the ownership of the building shall be reverted to the contractor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da24804, Sept. 20, 1996).

According to the Agreement drawn up by the Defendant Union andCC Construction (Evidence A) at the time of the instant agreement, 16 households out of 34 households out of the newly-built 34 households shall be sold to the association members, and the remaining 18 households shall be sold to the general public, and the general proceeds shall be received from the financial account jointly established by the Defendant Union andCC Construction. The unsold portion shall be the members’ contributions, general payment charges, and all other profits generated from the unsold portion shall be the revenue ofCC Construction (Article 16). The preservation registration of the association members, apartments, and welfare facilities shall be treated as the expenses and responsibilities of the Defendant Union or the association members after the completion of the construction of the construction (Article 16). The general sale, registration, recording, and other public affairs shall be the expenses for the preservation registration of the shares of the Defendant Union (Article 9); the expenses for the remaining portion shall be borne by the Defendant Union and all public charges and charges for the remaining portion, etc. (Article 12); if there is any unpaid relocation expenses and liquidation money, the right to the delivery facilities may be recognized as a lien (Article 24).

In full view of the content of the instant agreement, it is difficult to recognize that the CC Construction agreed to temporarily acquire 18 households, among newly-built 34 households apartment buildings, to be sold in general and appropriated for the construction cost. Rather, it is understood that CC Construction was based on the premise that CC Construction did not acquire 18 households in general at the time of non-payment of liquidation money, etc. in relation with the Defendant Union. Accordingly, the right under the premise that CC Construction was the initial acquisition of 18 households in general including the instant real estate is not recognized.

In addition, according to the above facts, the preservation registration of the defendant union was not made in violation of the instant agreement with theCC Construction, but it was made by the provisional seizure decision regarding the instant real estate in a state unregistered upon the plaintiff's request and the provisional seizure registration was entrusted, and thus, the registration officer made ex officio registration of preservation of ownership as a prior procedure to enter the provisional seizure registration on the unregistered building. Thus, there is no ground to deem that there is no illegality in the registration of preservation of ownership.

(5) Ultimately, since the right to seek cancellation of the preservation registration of the Defendant Union is not acknowledged on the premise that the CC Construction had acquired the general unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.