[2] Where the land readjustment project executor designates and disposes of land secured by the development recompense before a land substitution disposition to a third party, the time when the transferee acquires the right of use and ownership

[3] In case where the transferee of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay has seized the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the land readjustment project implementer, whether the project implementer may change the name of the owner on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in the future (negative), and whether the tort was committed when the transferee incurred loss to the creditor as a result of changing the name of the owner on the above ledger to the transferee in the future (affirmative)

[4] In case where the transferee of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay has seized the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the land developer, the requirements for the disposal of land secured by the project developer to constitute a tort against the execution creditor

[2] Where a land readjustment project executor designates a land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay before a land substitution disposition and disposes of it to a third party, if the transferee satisfies any of the requirements in the register of land delivery or the land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay, the transferee shall not only have the right to exclusively use and profit from the land in question, but also have the right to dispose of it to a third party. If a land substitution disposition is publicly announced thereafter, the transferee shall finally possess the land secured by the authorities in recompense of development recompense or the person registered in the register of the authorities secured by development recompense of development outlay

[3] In case where the transferee of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay has seized the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the land developer, it is prohibited to change the name of the owner on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense for development recompense for the project implementer to the transferee by the effect of prohibition of repayment of the seizure. If the transferee causes damage to the creditor as a result of disposal to the third party again by disregarding the seizure decision and changing the name of the owner on the register of land allotted by the authorities

[4] In case where the transferee of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay has seized the right to claim for ownership transfer registration against the land developer, in order to constitute a tort against the execution creditor, the transferee requires the transferee to transfer the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay holding the right to claim ownership transfer registration to the transferee and have the transferee dispose of the land, thereby undermining the creditor's rights. The mere fact that the project developer disposes of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay of development outlay of development outlay to the third party is not immediately constituted a tort caused

1. Claim on the effect of attachment and establishment of tort;

(a) Where the right to request the transfer of ownership is seized, the third party obligor shall be prohibited from arbitrarily performing the registration of transfer to the debtor according to the validity of prohibition of performance. However, such seizure is not limited to the real estate which is the object of the right to claim the registration, and it is effective only between the creditor, the debtor and the third party debtor because there is no method of public announcement thereof in the register other than serving the debtor's decision on the third party debtor, and it cannot be asserted that the seizure of the right to claim the transfer of ownership is effective against the third party who has made the transfer registration from the third party debtor or the debtor because the acquisition of the right to claim the transfer registration cannot be claimed as invalid, and if the third party debtor committed the transfer registration to the third party and again caused damage to the creditor again by the transfer registration of the land in the name of the third party, it shall be held liable for tort and if the transferee again acquired the right to claim the transfer of the land in the name of the third party to whom the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay was disposed of by the transferee or transferee of the land.

The court below held on November 14, 195, prior to the delivery of the decision of seizure, that where the land readjustment project implementer designated a land recompense for development outlay and disposed of it to a third party, if the transferee satisfies any of the requirements in the register of land delivery or the land recompense for development recompense, the obligation to the transferee of the project shall be deemed to have been completed, and where the transferee fails to meet any of the requirements in the register of land delivery or the land recompense for development recompense for development recompense, the transferee's right to claim the transfer of ownership against the project implementer shall continue to exist. Thus, if the transferee's right to claim the transfer of ownership is seized without any of the requirements in the register of land delivery or the land recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the land, the transferee's right to claim the transfer of ownership is to be transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1 corporation"), the decision of seizure cannot be deemed to have been effective, in light of legal principles as to transfer or change of the agreement.

B. Where the transferee of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay claims for the transfer of ownership against the project executor, the transferee's disposal of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the purpose of committing a tort against the execution creditor, it is necessary to transfer the land secured by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for the transfer of ownership to the transferee and have the transferee dispose of the land, thereby undermining the creditor's rights. The mere fact that the project executor disposes of the land secured by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, based on the above legal principles, the court below determined that the disposition of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay 2 through 8, 12, 15, 18 among the land disposed of after delivery of the seizure decision of this case to the defendant constitutes a tort against the plaintiff.

However, the defendant asserts that the contract cancellation with the non-party 1 company, the disposition of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay after the settlement of agreement with the defendant's supplementary intervenor was conducted regardless of the non-party 1 company, and even after examining the record, it is unclear whether the defendant transferred the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay after May 2, 200 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to dispose of the land. Rather, in light of the "current state of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay," "statement of settlement of the land (698, 123, 170)," and "statement of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development purposes, and the non-party 1 company's flag and nature, if the defendant disposed of the land to the non-party 1 company to the third party regardless of the non-party 1 company, the defendant cannot be held liable for tort against the plaintiff.

If so, the court below should have determined whether the above disposition of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, in particular, the non-party 1, transferred from the defendant to the third party or the defendant, regardless of whether the non-party 1 was disposed of to the third party in order to raise funds for the operation of the association.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination of whether the non-party 1 has a right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant against the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, which did not reach this point, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

C. The court below rejected the defendant's obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 as the result of settlement between the defendant and the non-party 1, on November 14, 1995, on behalf of the non-party 1, when the defendant was incorporated into the land allotted by the development recompense for development outlay and the non-party 1 by issuing a certificate of transfer on behalf of the non-party 1, and the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the construction price or transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the non-party 1 at the time of service of the seizure order in this case. The defendant cannot be deemed to have concluded a contract for the transfer of the land allotted by the non-party 1 with the non-party 1 or issued a certificate of transfer. The defendant cannot be deemed to have extinguished the defendant's obligation to transfer the ownership of the land allotted by the development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development purposes. In light of the records, it is justified in the judgment.

2. Claims concerning the scope of compensation for damage;

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when a compulsory auction is conducted by transferring the ownership of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay as part of the judgment of the court below to Nonparty 1 in the name of the company against the plaintiff's decision of seizure of this case, the court below calculated the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff in the auction procedure, based on the amount obtained by deducting only the amount of the claim with preferential right to payment, such as wages and national taxes, from the estimated amount of sale from the estimated amount of sale, the amount of compensation claims, the plaintiff's claims, and all claims of the general creditors, etc.,

However, according to the records, the defendant alleged to the effect that through the preparatory brief dated September 3, 2004 and November 18, 2004, the defendant should deduct the amount of the construction price to be paid to the non-party 1 company or the compensation for delay from the compensation for delay (681 pages, 757). The defendant's assertion to the effect that the compensation for delay due to the delay in the construction of the non-party 1 company should be deducted from the construction price to the non-party 1 company, and that the compensation for delay due to the delay in the construction of the non-party 1 company should be deducted from the compensation for delay to the non-party 1 company, and that the defendant should first deduct the amount of compensation to the plaintiff due

Therefore, the court below should have determined the amount to be distributed by the plaintiff by calculating the amount of each claim against the plaintiff and the general creditor, based on the amount of the claim against the non-party 1, in the case of sale proceeds of the land secured for recompense of development outlay sold in violation of the seizure decision.

Nevertheless, the court below did not determine the defendant's claim for deduction of compensation for delay and calculated the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff in the manner as stated in its reasoning by including the defendant's compensation for delay in the amount of the claim under the participation in the distribution of dividends. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of compensation for delay, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the judgment.

B. The court below excluded the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from the amount of claims secured by the land secured by the recompense for development outlay in the event of the auction procedure for the sale of this case from the amount of claims secured by the non-party 1 because it is difficult to see that the non-party 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the title holders recorded in the ledger of the land secured by the development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for distribution are entitled to participate in dividends, and the defendant also cannot be deemed to have the damage claim against the non-party 1. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)