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

(a) Defendant AA is the Plaintiff’s AB’s AB, Nonparty A, the largestCC, ED, E, E, E, E, EF, EG, EG, and H are the denial and children of thisB, and Nonparty II is the birth of thisB.

B. This Section: (a) from thisB on November 2, 1983, it was registered on October 25, 1983, from 00-8 large 648.6 square meters in Busan Northern-dong (hereinafter referred to as “399-8 land”) and completed registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase, and (b) completed registration of ownership transfer on May 15, 1985 after constructing a reinforced concrete building of the 1st and the 6th floor above on the ground under its name. This Section completed registration of ownership transfer on June 20, 1986 with respect to the above new building of 00-4 large 201.3 square meters in Busan-dong on June 20, 198 (hereinafter referred to as “the above new building of 300-4 square meters on June 19, 198, and each of the above new buildings of 98-198 square meters on August 19, 198.

C. On November 2, 1995, the above provisional disposition was registered on November 7, 1995 by the court of Busan District Court (95Kahap5361). On June 29, 1995, the above provisional disposition was changed to the provisional disposition registration of this case to the sole creditor on June 29, 2005, and this case's provisional disposition was changed to the provisional disposition registration of this case's land. On November 27, 1995, this case's provisional disposition of this case's building of this case's building of this case's case's case's provisional disposition of this case's case's case's case's provisional disposition of this case's case's case's case's case's provisional disposition of this case's case's case's case's case's provisional disposition of this case's case's case's case's case's case's provisional disposition of this case's case's case's case's case's provisional disposition of this case's case's case'

D. On August 22, 1996, the judgment of the court of Busan District Court No. 6181 (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure") was completed on August 22, 1996 on the ground that this Section II was delinquent in 00 won including value-added tax, and the judgment of the court of Busan District Court No. 297 delivered on May 10, 200 on the ground that this Section did not pay for value-added tax amounting to 00 won, and the judgment of the court of Busan District Court No. 297 delivered on August 27, 199 on the ground that this Section II was affirmed on August 22, 1996. The judgment of the court of Busan District Court No. 97 was finalized on the ground that the heir, including the defendant, won, and this part of the judgment of the court of Busan District Court No. 297 delivered on September 10, 200, 97 No. 19796 of the judgment of the court of Busan District Court of 996.

F. Defendant A applied for the cancellation of each of the registrations of the seizure of the instant land on the grounds of the final judgment of 96Gahap15049, 2010Gahap17027, and the cancellation of the attachment of the North Korean Northern Tax Office and the Kim Maritime Tax Office; and

On August 12, 2011, the North Busan District Office (No. 58989 and No. 58991), each of the above registrations of seizure was revoked on the ground of the invalidation of provisional disposition. Defendant A applied for the cancellation of the attachment registration of the instant building on the ground of the final judgment No. 977rhap13705. Defendant A applied for the cancellation of the attachment registration of the North Busan District Tax Office on the ground of the final judgment No. 977rhap13705, and on the ground of the invalidation of provisional disposition by the receipt of No. 58989 on August 12, 2011.

G. Defendant XX Life Insurance completed the joint establishment registration of a mortgage on the instant land and building with the Busan District Court’s Northern District Court No. 1557, Jan. 10, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to Defendant AA

A) As to the land of this case, even though the cancellation of ownership transfer registration was executed by the decision of 96 Gohap15049, the provisional disposition of this case was not cancelled, but it was still changed to the provisional disposition of Defendant A's sole name as of June 29, 2005, and the above decision is not the judgment on the merits of the provisional disposition of this case, but the judgment of 2010Kahap17027 is the judgment ordering the declaration of transfer of ownership on the ground of transfer agreement on October 30, 1996, and it is deemed that the provisional disposition of this case was issued on November 7, 1995, and the above judgment is not the judgment on the merits of the provisional disposition of this case, and therefore, the above judgment is not the judgment on the merits of the provisional disposition of this case, and thus, the judgment of 96 Gohap15049, 20107Gu17027 is the judgment on the provisional disposition of this case, and thus the registration of the seizure of the Northwest and the cancellation shall be restored.

B) As to the building of this case: 97Gahap13705 decision was rendered on October 30, 1996 that ordered an expression of intent to transfer ownership on the ground of the transfer agreement, and the above decision was deemed to have been rendered on November 30, 1995, and it is not a judgment on the merits of the provisional disposition of this case, and thus, the attachment registration of the North Northern Tax Office should be restored on the ground that the judgment of 97Gahap13705 was recognized as the judgment on the merits of the provisional disposition of this case and thus, the attachment registration of the provisional disposition of this case should be restored.

2) As to Defendant XX life insurance

Defendant XX Life Insurance constitutes a third party with an interest in the restoration registration of each of the above seizure registrations, and thus, is obligated to express his/her consent on the restoration registration of each of the above seizure registrations.

B. Defendant Lee Dong-A’s assertion

1) The provisional disposition of this case is to preserve two rights, namely, to preserve the right to claim for ownership transfer registration, and to preserve the right to claim for ownership transfer registration following the cancellation of the sales contract and the right to claim for ownership transfer registration cancellation following the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer even though this Section purchased 399-8 land prior to the combination of land from BB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the first part is to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration in accordance with the agreement that Defendant A shall have the ownership transfer of 5138/11624 shares in the area of the land from this Section from this Section. Therefore, the provisional disposition of the heir except this case was cancelled by the cancellation of the execution by the decision of 96Ra15049, but the remaining part to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of Defendant A in the provisional disposition of this case was still valid as the relation to the provisional disposition of this case to which Defendant A had continued to exist as the sole creditor of this case. Therefore, the unity judgment of this case and this decision is recognized as a unity of this case's decision.

2) On October 30, 1995, Defendant A entered into an agreement with this Section to be transferred 5138/11624 shares of the instant land with the exception of the portion of the said 399-8 land prior to the combination of the instant land and the instant building. Defendant A filed an application for provisional injunction against this II due to the said transfer agreement. The judgment of 2010Kahap17027 is the judgment on the merits of the instant provisional injunction against the instant land, and the judgment of 97 Ma13705 is the judgment on the merits of the instant provisional injunction against the instant building.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

1) Whether the judgment of 96 Gohap15049 was the judgment on the merits of the provisional disposition on the land of this case

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the judgment of the plaintiff 96 A is not the principal judgment of the provisional disposition of this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge the provisional disposition of this case. Rather, in full view of the entries and arguments in Gap 4-1, Eul 3, and 4, the heir, including the defendant A, etc., such as the plaintiff 1, BB against this II on July 2, 1996 and this II on the ground that the sale contract between the plaintiff 399-8 and this II on the 399-8 land of this case was cancelled on the ground of non-payment of this II, 96Na15049 on the part of this case's land of this case's 39-8 provisional disposition of this case's 4 provisional disposition of this case's ownership transfer registration of this case's land of this case's 96-1, 99-1, 196.

2) Whether the judgment of 97 Gohap13705 is the provisional disposition of the building of this case, and whether the judgment of 2010 Gohap17027 is the final judgment of the provisional disposition of the land of this case (the judgment on the date of the transfer agreement)

In light of the above facts, "No. 4 through 7, No. 2, No. 6, and No. 97, No. 971, and No. 97, No. 971 and No. 17027 are stated as the reasons for transfer agreement No. 97, No. 971 and No. 97, No. 971, No. 97, No. 971 and No. 97, No. 97, No. 971, No. 96, No. 97, No. 971, No. 97, No. 97, No. 97, No. 97, No. 97, No. 2010, No. 97, No. 97, No. 97, No.

B. Determination as to Defendant XX life insurance claims

As seen earlier, the judgment of 96Gahap15049, 2010Gahap17027 was not the principal judgment of the provisional disposition of the instant land, and as long as the judgment of 97Gahap13705 was not deemed to be the principal judgment of the provisional disposition of the instant building, the claim for Defendant XX life insurance on the premise that it was not the judgment of the provisional disposition of the instant building, the claim for the instant provisional disposition of the instant building is without merit.

4. Conclusion

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