A. Defendant OB performed the procedure for registration of correction that applied the Seoul Central District Court, Jung-gu, Seoul Central District Court No. 127 on June 26, 200 on the registration of the establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment that was completed by the receiptxx on June 26, 200 as the "the establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of the Seoul Central District Court" No. 127 and the "the establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of the Seoul Central District Court No.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea and X expressed their consent to the registration of the above right to collateral security correction.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

(a) Description of the claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Grounds for recognition;

1) Defendant 1: Confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2) Defendant 2, 3, and 4: without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2, and pleadings

The purport of the whole

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the registration purpose of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter referred to as the "establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of this case") which was completed as the receiptxxx on June 26, 2000 with respect to the new-dongxx in Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court, Seoul Central District Court, is "the entire establishment of a mortgage of thisCC No. 127 and No. 128 of this case," and the registration officer's mistake is "the entire establishment of a mortgage of thisCC No. 127 of this case," and in this case, the registration of correction to correct it shall be applied jointly by the person entitled to registration and the person obliged to make registration due to the registration for correction of the right to the alteration of the right, so the plaintiff has the right to request the defendant OB, the person responsible for registration, to implement the correction

In addition, if the above corrective registration is made, defendant X, the Republic of Korea, Xx, and Xx are likely to cause damages that could not be recognized as a right to the whole of thisCC shares at No. 128 of A, so they are third parties having interests in the registration, and they are obligated to express their consent to the above corrective registration.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. Determination on common defense

Since the Defendants completed the lawful seizure registration as an exercise of the right to collect taxes in arrears and completed the lawful seizure registration, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is without merit. However, as stated earlier, this case is judged as to whether the Defendants are obligated to accept the registration of correction because they fall under a third party with interest in the registration. As such, it is unclear whether the registration of seizure is legitimate or not, the above defense is no longer examined and rejected.

B. Judgment on the X's defense

The above defendants did not pay taxes exceeding 5 million won, and in this case they asserted that the disposition taken by the head of the Gu against the market price in arrears pursuant to Article 6 (3) and (4) of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Tax Ordinance (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 4271, May 4, 2006, which was amended partially and enforced May 4, 2006) was made by the head of the Gu. Thus, they asserted that they cannot be a legitimate defendant.

The third party interested in the registration refers to a registered titleholder who is likely to suffer damage by permitting the registration of change or revision of a right to the existing registration, and the risk of such damage is judged by the form of registration and whether there is a risk of actual damage (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da87878 Decided December 10, 2015). In accordance with the provisions of the former Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Ordinance, the effect of the seizure made by Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to the above provisions of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Tax Ordinance shall be set aside in Seoul Metropolitan Government, and it is difficult to view the Seoul Metropolitan Government as a third party with an interest in the registration, so the defendants' defense shall not be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.