2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Paragraph 1 of the order and the defendant's Republic of Korea will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of seizure (in charge of tax management and -OO) completed on March 20, 2014 by OOOO for each real estate listed in the attached list, which was completed on March 20, 2014 by OOO for the 1/2 portion of KimD.

(a) Description of the claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Applicable provisions;

Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)

C. Judgment on the costs of lawsuit

However, since the lawsuit of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's title trust, it is decided that the plaintiff bears the litigation costs as ordered by applying Article 98 and the proviso of Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) Basic facts;

1) The Plaintiff is a clan that is the mid-term group of KimAAA 61 years old KimO.

2) On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant land”);

B Title Trust was made to Defendant KimCC and KimD, and on May 8, 2013, the OOO branch of the District Court completed provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of all shares of the conditional co-owners by the receipt OOO branch of the District Court.

3) As Defendant KimD did not pay national taxes, Defendant Republic of Korea completed each of the registration of seizure on March 20, 2014 under the OOOOO branch of the O district court on the part of Defendant KimD on each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant seizure registration”).

4) Each of the instant lands was incorporated into a site for an O1 general industrial complex (stage 3) development project; and

The plaintiff can file a claim for share transfer registration for each land of this case, and decided to delegate the lawsuit against the defendants to the president of a clan, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination on the main defense of this case

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the Plaintiff, not the owners of each land of this case, has no standing to seek implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of seizure registration against Defendant Republic of Korea.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, since the plaintiff's standing to sue is the person who asserts himself/herself as the person entitled to demand performance, and the plaintiff is not required to be the person entitled to demand performance. Thus, inasmuch as the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea against the defendant who is the person liable for registration, this part of the lawsuit cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the plaintiff is not the owner with respect to

C. Judgment on the merits

Where the property subject to attachment is a real estate registered under the name of a person liable for tax payment, the determination shall be based on the validity of registration. If a co-ownership registration under the name of a person liable for tax payment on the real estate subject to attachment is made through a title trust based on the will of the truster, even if the truster owns ownership, the co-ownership share belongs externally to the trustee in accordance with the legal principles of title trust. As long as the State externally seizes the property for which co-ownership belongs to the trustee in arrears, the attachment disposition shall be valid (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu506, Apr. 24, 1984). Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, where the real right to the real estate owned by a clan is registered under the name of a person other than the clan, tax evasion, compulsory execution, or evasion of statutory restrictions, and the title truster’s right to the real estate is not effective for the reason that the title trust registration does not belong to the title truster or the title trust administrator’s right to the real estate under title trust cannot be held.

In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was made, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant KimD with respect to the 1/2 shares out of each land of this case was completed through title trust. As such, ownership of 1/2 shares out of each land of this case shall be deemed to have been reverted to Defendant KimD externally. Therefore, the attachment disposition of Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to the 1/2 shares out of each land of this case and the attachment registration of this case shall be deemed to be valid for Defendant KimD’s property.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant attachment registration is null and void against the substance over form principle, as the Plaintiff is a title truster and a person entitled to provisional registration. However, in a case where a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer has been made prior to the registration of a taxpayer’s property as part of a disposition on default and the principal registration has been made thereafter, if the provisional registration is made based on the priority preservation based on the purchase and sale reservation, the registration of seizure made subsequent to the provisional registration shall lose its effect (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15193, Dec. 20, 196). In this case, as long as the Plaintiff did not complete the principal registration based on the provisional registration with respect to each of the instant lands, the registration of seizure in this case shall not be deemed null and void unless the Plaintiff completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration, and solely on

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea based on the premise that the registration of seizure of this case is null and void is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendant KimCC and KimD are justified, and the claims against the defendant's Republic of Korea are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.