Each of the registrations of this case shall not be deemed null and void.

A request for cancellation of the registration of seizure under the premise that the seizure has been void automatically or has already become void shall not be justified.

2015da 172689 Seizure and cancellation of registration

OO

Korea

2016.08.30

oly 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant will cancel the seizure registration completed on March 23, 2010 by OOOOOO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- of the same registry office on May 24, 2010.

1. Basic facts

On March 23, 2010, the registration of each attachment (hereinafter referred to as "each attachment registration of this case") No.OOOOOO No. 200 on March 23, 2010 by the holder of the right (OOOO No. 20) was completed on May 24, 2010 of the receipt OOO No. 200 on March 23, 2010 by the receipt OOO No. 200, the holder of the right (OO No. 200) on May 24, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual owner of the instant real estate was the Plaintiff, and on January 1, 1997, leased the instant real estate to AA until December 31, 201, and on the case of ownership transfer registration under OOOOOOOO OOO O of the O district, AA decided to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on July 2, 2015. Since each of the instant registrations was based on the attachment due to the failure to pay the national taxes of AA, the owner, the attachment registration of the instant real estate should be cancelled because it is an unfair attachment registration that violates the substance over form principle.

3. Determination

A. Determination on this safety defense

Since it is reasonable to view that the ownership of the instant building was transferred to a non-party BB due to the transfer of the ownership of the land located in the instant real estate in the name of the non-party BB, the Plaintiff is merely a person who has a de facto indirect interest and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a non-party who is not a party-qualified. However, in the performance lawsuit, the Plaintiff has standing to sue. As such, inasmuch as the Plaintiff asserts that he/she is the actual owner of the instant real estate, and sought cancellation of each registration of the instant seizure, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she

B. Judgment on the merits

In full view of the purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 and 1-2 of this case, each of the registrations of this case is completed with respect to the real estate in the name of AA due to the default of national taxes, such as value-added tax, and it is difficult to deem that the registration of this case is void as it is reasonable. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's seizure disposition, which was the cause of each of the registration of this case, was lawfully released or revoked by the competent authority (it is not possible to revoke by the court in charge of civil trial based on the illegality and illegality of the above seizure), and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each registration of this case, which is premised on the defendant'

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no ground.