A. On April 1, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a pre-sale agreement with Defendant B on the instant real estate owned by himself (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”) and completed the instant provisional registration with Defendant B on the following day on the ground of the instant pre-sale agreement.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant B’s failure to pay the global income tax, the Incheon Tax Office under Defendant B’s control of the Republic of Korea attached the right to claim ownership transfer of the instant real estate by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant seizure”) on November 7, 2012, and completed the additional registration of attachment against the instant provisional registration under Article 10748 of the Incheon District Court’s receipt of the following day.

(hereinafter referred to as “registration of seizure of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. The facts that the Plaintiff and Defendant B conspired to make a provisional registration of the instant claim for transfer of ownership without actually concluding the promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate, and that the provisional registration of this case was completed, do not conflict between the said parties.

B. If so, the sales contract of this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, and thus is null and void, the defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The provisional registration of this case is invalid because the Plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant B without any cause, entered into a false pre-sale agreement and completed the pre-sale agreement. 2) The instant pre-sale agreement was completed on April 2, 2003, but Defendant B did not exercise the right to complete the pre-sale agreement by the lapse of ten years from that date, and the right to complete the sale agreement was extinguished by the lapse of the exclusion period. Thus, the provisional registration of this case is already invalidated.

3. Therefore, this case’s provisional registration of this case.