In the event that the registration of ownership transfer falls under the invalidation of the cause, the seizure disposition is also subject to the invalidation of the disposition.

Although it is alleged to the effect that there is no obligation to accept the registration cancellation of transfer registration, the seizure disposition is void as a matter of course, so the defendant's argument is without merit.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant expressed his/her intention to accept the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed on February 13, 1986 by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, ○○ Registry of Registry on February 13, 1986

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 1986, the registration of preservation of the Plaintiff’s name was completed by the receipt of the Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court’s Daejeon District Court’s ○○○○ registry office for ○○○○○○ on the attached list (hereinafter “instant house”) with respect to the real estate newly built by the Plaintiff, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed by the title of Song○ on February 11, 1986 as the receipt of the same date.

B. As to the instant housing, each registration of entry in the name of the defendant was completed due to the seizure on February 11, 1988 and December 24, 1990.

C. On March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the above registration, claiming that the instant house was owned by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not sell it to the Defendant, and that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Song-gu court on the instant house should be cancelled as the cause invalidation, and that the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the second instance court as to the house of this case shall be cancelled as a cause invalidation. The defendant, who is a third party with interest in the registration, has a duty to express his/her consent to the cancellation of the above registration to the plaintiff seeking the removal of interference based on ownership unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the defendant's assertion to the effect that he did not have a duty to accept the registration of cancellation of the above transfer of ownership since the house of this case was legitimately seized due to the delinquency in tax by Song

First, the attachment disposition against the housing of this case owned by the plaintiff is null and void as a result of the disposition on default against the defendant's second instance. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the transfer registration under the name of the Song-gu court is valid since it is possible for the defendant to acquire the house of this case by prescription, but it cannot be accepted as being contrary to the contents of the above final judgment.

Conclusion

Acceptance of Claim