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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of seizure completed by the Daejeon District Court No. 23020, Oct. 9, 2008, with respect to the size of 995 square meters in the land for the AAri 114-17 gas station in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun.

A. On September 7, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with 114-14, 15, and 17-3 lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the above 114-14-14, and agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 140 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 560 million on September 14, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 700 million on September 28, 2007.

B. On November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above 114-14, 15 and the above 114-14 ground buildings. However, since the instant land was designated as a land transaction permission area between July 2, 2005 and January 30, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was not completed. On December 14, 2007, the Daejeon District Court's Red Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office Order 2007Kadan1743 to dispose of the instant land and completed the registration of the provisional disposition business.

C. Meanwhile, the defendant completed the seizure, etc. on October 9, 2008 on the land of this case on the grounds of the seizure (property tax and 4101) made on October 7, 2008 under the Act on the Disposition of Tax Payment against KimB by the head of the Ansan Tax Office.

D. When the instant land was cancelled in the land transaction permission zone on January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a separate sales contract concerning the instant land with KimB, and submitted it to the registry, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on February 27, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence (including each number), Eul 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Summary of the plaintiff's claim

As to the land attached by the Defendant, the Plaintiff had already completed the registration of provisional disposition prohibition on December 14, 2007, prior to the seizure on the land of this case, and on February 27, 2009, completed the registration of ownership transfer as the execution of the right to be preserved for the above provisional disposition. The above seizure is null and void because it goes against the validity of the above provisional disposition, and the above seizure registration must be cancelled.

B. Determination

Where a provisional disposition is completed pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act after the provisional disposition on real estate has been registered, the effect of the provisional disposition may be denied within the scope of the right to be preserved if the person holding the right to the provisional disposition obtains a favorable judgment in the judgment on the merits, and the priority effect of such provisional disposition shall not vary with that of a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 92Ma903, Feb. 19, 1993). Thus, the person holding the right to the provisional disposition who has received a final judgment in favor of the principal lawsuit (including judicial compromise or recognition; hereinafter the same shall apply) may cancel the provisional disposition registration by filing an application for cancellation of the provisional disposition on the basis of a disposition on default after attaching the authentic copy of the final judgment, and if the person holding the right to the provisional disposition has failed to simultaneously file an application for cancellation of the registration on the provisional disposition on the basis of a disposition on default after the registration on ownership transfer after the provisional disposition was registered with the public official holding the right to the provisional disposition at the same time.

If the registration of transfer of ownership was made on February 27, 2009 with respect to the land of this case based on the provisional disposition order rendered by Hongsung Branch of Daejeon District Court 2007Kadan1743, which is the basis of the registration of provisional disposition by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will immediately file an application for cancellation of the registration of seizure in the name of the defendant (so, there is no practical benefit to seek cancellation of the registration of seizure). If the above registration of transfer of ownership was made for a reason separate from the right to be preserved in the above provisional disposition without being subject to the above provisional disposition, the plaintiff can not deny the effect of the registration of seizure by the above provisional disposition on the ground that the above registration of transfer of ownership has been made first on the ground that the above provisional disposition was effective, on the ground that the above registration of transfer of ownership was made, and in full view of the purport of each statement in Gap 1, 3, and 4 (including each number), each of the above provisional disposition's statement in the whole statement, the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration of transfer was made on the above provisional disposition cannot be justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.