Plaintiff 1 and 21 others (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Noh Young-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Han-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea

May 19, 2009

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, including the cost of supplementary participation.

The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as of January 3, 2008, which was completed as of January 274, 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court Registry (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ Registry") with respect to each land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list to Nonparty 1 (the resident registration number omitted and the address Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 1999, Nonparty 1 leased each of the lands listed in [Attachment List 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Nonparty 1 to September 18, 2001, and entered into a trade promise with Nonparty 1 to purchase the instant land at KRW 2.5 billion from Nonparty 1 on May 31, 2001 (hereinafter “the instant promise”). On the same day, Nonparty 1 completed the provisional registration claim for ownership transfer (hereinafter “the instant provisional registration”).

B. On the ground of the instant land, the instant building was newly constructed as indicated in Paragraph (3) of the Attached List, which is an aggregate building (hereinafter “the instant building”). On November 5, 2003, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed due to the commission of registration of provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal on the instant building, and the instant building was registered on January 3, 2004 on the aggregate building management ledger. The Plaintiffs received each of the following numbers of houses from furgs, among the instant buildings:

3. 10, 201. 16, 201. 20, 201. 16, 25. 20, 30, 201. 30, 40, 40, 410, 410, 40. 16, 20. 10, 30, 410, 410, 410, 410, 410, 410, 206. 18, 205, 20, 30, 410, 40. 15, 20, 206. 31, 20, 205, 10, 206. 15, 20, 204, 20, 310,000, 316. 4, 20,00

C. While Nonparty 1, who was the owner of the land of this case, did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to the instant purchase and sale agreement, on March 3, 2004, designated Nonparty 1 as the secondary taxpayer of Liby loan to collect the value-added tax in arrears. On June 12, 2004, the instant land was seized on June 16, 2004 (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”), and the record registration was completed on June 16, 2004. As a result, Nonparty 1 Korea Asset Management Corporation requested a public sale on December 4, 2006 to conduct the public sale procedure with respect to the instant land, the land of this case was claimed on December 20, 207 by means of the public sale (hereinafter “instant public sale”) to the Defendant on December 20, 2007.

D. On November 21, 2008, Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 7, and 11 completed the registration of transfer of ownership in their names with respect to the section for exclusive use that was sold in accordance with the table of the foregoing paragraph among each of the instant buildings on January 9, 2009, and Plaintiff 9 on December 30, 2008.

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9 through 15, 19, 20 (including the number number), the fact inquiry into the director of the tax office and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the principal safety defense of the Intervenor joining the Defendant

The Intervenor joining the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiffs are not the public auction party with respect to the instant land, and thus, should be dismissed. However, in the instant case where the Plaintiffs seek the implementation of the Defendant’s defense in successive subrogation, the aforementioned defense by the Intervenor’s Intervenor is without merit.

3. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The public auction of this case is in violation of Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"), and its defect is serious and clear. Thus, the defendant is obligated to register cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant as stated in the claim against the non-party 1. The plaintiff is the non-party 1's creditor, and the plaintiffs are the creditors of the frig loan, and the plaintiff is the creditor of the frig loan, the plaintiffs seek implementation by subrogation in sequence against the non-party 1.

B. Determination

In Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, the right to use site of a sectional owner is in accordance with the disposition of his section of exclusive ownership (Paragraph 1), and the sectional owner shall not dispose of the right to use site separately from his section of exclusive ownership unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations or notarial deeds (Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 4), and the prohibition of separate disposal is not against a third party who has acquired real rights in good faith without registering the purport thereof (Paragraph 3). The purport of the above provision is to prevent the separation between the section of exclusive ownership and the right to use site of an aggregate building from the occurrence of sectional ownership without the right to use site by preventing the occurrence of legal stability and reasonable regulation as to an aggregate building by preventing the occurrence of sectional ownership without the right to use site by preventing the separation of the section of exclusive ownership and the right to use site from being separated.

However, since there exists a disposal act of the establishment of the right to collateral security prior to the establishment of the right to collateral security before the establishment of the right to collateral security, and an auction is conducted and sold as a procedure for the execution of the right to collateral security, the sale of the existing right to collateral security cannot be deemed an independent disposal after the establishment of the right to collateral security, and the existing right to collateral security has acquired exchange value as a site prior to the establishment of the right to collateral security, and where a separate disposal of the newly constructed aggregate building and the site is prohibited after the new construction of the aggregate building, the existing right to collateral security on the site is restricted from the use and disposal of the site due to the restriction on the use and disposal of the site, thereby causing damage to the mortgagee who acquired the right to collateral security by expectationing the whole exchange value of the site as a site as a collateral. Therefore, in cases where the right to collateral security exists prior to the establishment of the aggregate building and an auction is sold as a result of the execution of the right to collateral security, it cannot be deemed a separate disposal prohibited under Article 20 of the

According to the records No. 11-2 and No. 15-25, Oct. 25, 199, Nonparty 1 concluded a contract to establish a mortgage with the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “National Bank”) on Oct. 25, 199, and entered the mortgage at the National Bank on the same date (hereinafter “No. 1-mortgage”) and the first-mortgage was recorded on Oct. 26, 2007 with the Seoul District Court 200 million won on Oct. 26, 2007. The first-mortgage was recorded on Oct. 28, 2007. The first-mortgage was recorded on Oct. 23, 2007; the second-mortgage was transferred to the Seoul District Court 200 million won on Oct. 26, 2003; and the third-party 1 was registered on Oct. 28, 199 to the Seoul District Court 200 million won on the ground of the second-party 2's non-party 1-party 2.

According to the above facts, since the building of this case had already been established with respect to the land of this case before it was established as an aggregate building, and the decision of voluntary commencement of auction based on the first through third collateral security had already been issued with regard to the land of this case, and then the sale of this case had been executed with the procedure of voluntary commencement of auction based on the first through third collateral security, separate week 2 from the procedure of voluntary sale) the procedure of realization and execution, which was conducted with the seizure disposition of this case, by the purchaser's full payment of purchase price, not only the seizure disposition of this case but also the first through third collateral security prior to the establishment of the aggregate building of this case, the sale price was distributed pursuant to Article 81 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 77 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 79-71 of the National Tax Collection Basic Rule 5) 79-71 of the National Tax Collection Act were cancelled. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the public sale of this case constitutes a separate sale prohibition under Article 20 of the Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List]

Judge Choi Jin (Presiding Judge)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da45652, 45669 delivered on November 16, 2000

Note 2) Supreme Court Decision 88Meu42 Decided January 31, 1989

(3) Article 81 (Distribution Method) ① Money under Article 80(1)2 and 3 shall be apportioned to the following national taxes, additional dues, disposition fees for arrears and other claims;

4) When the chief of the tax office or the Korea Asset Management Corporation intends to take procedures for the transfer of rights to any sold property pursuant to Article 79 of the Act, he shall entrust the buyer with a written entrustment for the registration of transfer of rights, a notice of decision on sale or a certified copy thereof, or a certified copy of the distribution statement, submitted by the buyer.

(5) 79-71 【The right to be extinguished in connection with the sale” in Article 77 of the Decree refers to the following rights, and these rights shall be extinguished at the time when the purchaser pays the purchase price: