According to the records, the following facts can be recognized:

A. On October 23, 1996, the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. received a provisional attachment order as to the land of this case on the 24th of the same month, and completed the provisional attachment registration on October 25, 1996 on the 26th of the same month after receiving a provisional attachment order as to the land of this case from the Gwangju District Court 96Kadan2493 on the 26th of the same month. The Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. completed the provisional attachment registration on May 31, 1997, and the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. completed the provisional attachment registration on the 26th of the same month after receiving a provisional attachment order as to each of the land of this case on the 196Kadan6160 on October 25, 196. The Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. completed the provisional attachment registration on May 31, 1997 and the Korea Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. completed the provisional attachment registration on each of the above land of this case.

B. On March 22, 1995, Nonparty 2 completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage for each of the instant land as the appellant, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 16,00,000,000, and the debtor.

C. On December 29, 2005, as each of the instant lands was incorporated into the Road Construction Works for the Residential Environment Improvement Project in the Guama District, which is a residential environment improvement project implemented by the project implementer, the Guamanam-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee rendered a ruling to expropriate each of the instant lands, obstacles, etc. in total of KRW 42,240,40,00.

D. On January 20, 2006, Nonparty 2 received an order of seizure and assignment by subrogation based on the above right of collateral security with respect to each of the instant real estates and obstacles, etc. held by the appellant against the net city with the claim amounting to KRW 16,000,000,00 from the above net support 200,000.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. The appellant asserts that the decision of the first instance court is invalid because each of the above real estate was registered for each of the above real estate of this case, and the seizure was issued in competition.

B. According to Article 45 (1) of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, a project operator shall acquire the ownership of land or goods on the commencement date of expropriation, and other rights related to such land or goods are extinguished simultaneously. Even if provisional seizure is executed against the expropriated real estate, the provisional seizure of such real estate becomes null and void as the project operator has acquired the ownership of such expropriated at the original time due to expropriation, and in this case, it cannot be said that the provisional seizure of such real estate naturally transferred the claims for expropriation and its validity would become null and void as a matter of course. Thus, the provisional seizure registration of each real estate of this case cannot be deemed concurrent cases, which are the grounds for invalidation of an assignment order of the above claims for expropriation, the appellant's above assertion is without merit (On the other hand, the appellant, who submitted the judgment of provisional seizure, shall not be subject to suspension of performance under Article 29 (2) of the Civil Execution Act or assignment order under Article 48 (4) of the Civil Execution Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-young (Presiding Judge)