2. Defendant Han-gu, ○○○○, ○○○○-○, ○○○-○○○○○, which completed the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on April 7, 2009, with respect to the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, which completed on April 7, 200.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Han-dong, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant

The costs incurred between the Republic of Korea shall be borne by each plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On January 22, 2003, the procedure for requesting the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of public sale on January 22, 2003

(n)

A. This case’s discussion on December 28, 1987 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “the instant discussion”).

In December 29, 1987, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed.

B. ThisA on April 6, 2009, sold the land of this case to Defendant Han-B and ○ District Court

On April 7, 2009, ○○ registry office completed the registration of ownership transfer with ○○○○○○○○○.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions in Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, and two, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts as follows as the cause of the claim of this case.

A. On January 22, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land by obtaining a successful bid of 3.22 million won of the instant land from the public auction procedure conducted by the head of ○○ Tax Office and paying the sale price in full around that time.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer registration of ownership on the instant land that was completed in the future of the Defendant HanB was completed on the ground of a sales contract with the unentitled person, and that it was null and void of the cause, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration against the Defendant HanB.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that he acquired the instant land through a public auction on January 22, 2013, and sought implementation of the transfer of ownership registration procedure based on the said public auction procedure against the Defendant, a seller under the said public auction procedure, to the Republic of Korea.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant AB

In full view of the entries and arguments of Gap 2-6, the head of ○○ Tax Office decided to sell the land of this case to the plaintiff 320,000 won pursuant to the provisions of Article 75 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 7004, Dec. 30, 2003; the main sentence of Article 75 (1): Upon making a sale decision, the head of the tax office shall issue a notice of decision to sell the land to the plaintiff within seven days from the date of the sale decision; the payment period under paragraph (1) shall be within seven days from the date of the sale decision; the sale of the land of this case shall be 320,000 won to the plaintiff on Jan. 24, 2003; the sale of the land of this case shall be 3220,000 won to the plaintiff on Jan. 30, 201; the plaintiff shall pay 200,000 won receipts of this case to the plaintiff on Jan. 24, 201303.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case through a public sale under Article 77 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, except in extenuating circumstances, since the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in the public sale procedure for the land of this case and paid the successful bid price, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case through a public sale under Article 77 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act. Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration of the land of this case completed in the future of defendant Han-B was completed on the grounds of a sales contract with a person who is not the owner, the above registration shall be deemed null and void. Accordingly, the defendant Han-B

In regard to this, the defendant Han-B may recognize that this case's land was paid in full at the time of the public auction, and even if this case's land was not subject to the public auction procedure, or that this case's land was not subject to the public auction procedure, the registration of ownership transfer by the defendant Han-B is valid. According to the records in Eul 2, Eul 150 won and transfer income tax 2,838,850 won on February 18, 2003 and transfer income tax 2,838,850 won on December 4, 2006, and transfer income tax 2,00,659,170 won on January 29, 2007. However, the defendant's assertion that this case's land was paid in full by the defendant 2,000 won on or around February 18, 2003, that it is reasonable to view that this case's land was paid in full by the plaintiff 2,003.

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

Article 77(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the purchaser shall acquire the sale property at the time of the payment of purchase price. Thus, even if the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, the Plaintiff is demanding the Defendant Republic of Korea to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer registration for the said public sale. However, Article 97 Subparag. 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that the Plaintiff shall entrust the registration office with the registration of the transfer of right due to the public sale where the government office directly conducted the public sale. Thus, if the Plaintiff requests the head of ○○ Tax Office, who was the owner of the instant land, who was the owner of the instant land, to entrust the registration of the transfer of right due to the public sale, along with the relevant documents necessary for the registration entrustment procedure, the Plaintiff may complete the registration in the future by simply entrusting the registration office with the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff at the competent registry office. However, if the law prepares a separate and simple procedure other than the ordinary lawsuit

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1B is justified, and the lawsuit against the defendant 1B is illegal and dismissed.