Cancellation of Attachment Registration

The provisional registration of the defendant against the land of this case, which is a false registration of conspiracy to avoid default procedure, is valid, and therefore the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Article 108 of the Civil Act

Daejeon District Court Branch 2017Kadan565 Seizure and cancellation of attachment registration

On October 11, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer for all land was completed on October 11, 2016.

(c)

9) Meanwhile, on February 19, 2016, except for the case where the Plaintiff agreed to acquire the debt with the right to collateral security.

Before March 8, 2016, AA paid KRW 320 million as the purchase price to A from March 8, 2016.

(b) Disposition on default and seizure;

1) On November 7, 2014, the Defendant (Jurisdiction: westan Office) shall be removed from the Republic of Korea-U.S., Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

* A notice of taxation on the ground that no transfer income tax on land profit has been reported

The notice of tax payment was served on AA on January 8, 2015.

2) Since then, the Defendant, who did not pay the capital gains tax, did not pay the capital gains tax, on April 23, 2015, respectively.

On April 21, 2015, the registration of seizure (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") was made on the land.

C) complete the project.

(c) Notice of cancellation of registration of seizure and objection thereto;

1) On October 12, 2016, the registration of the seizure of this case to the defendant on the registration of the attachment of the Daejeon District Court’s Taean registry office, etc.

Notice of cancellation ex officio and supplementary registration of notice of cancellation ex officio with respect to each land of this case

was done.

2) However, on November 9, 2016, the director of the Seosan Tax Office claims the transfer of ownership between AA and BB.

Because provisional registration is false to avoid a disposition on default, the registration of seizure shall not be cancelled.

an objection to the purport that the above objection has been cited, and the additional registration of the notification subject to ex officio cancellation is made;

was cancelled.

D. The right to collateral security, etc. of each land of this case

1) With respect to each of the instant lands on July 3, 2008, the debtor BB, the Saemaul Bank of Korea, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and

The registration of creation of a mortgage on the basis of the maximum debt amount of 650 million won was completed.

2)* On December 3, 2014, the debtor AA, K with the right to collateral security, K with the maximum debt amount

The establishment registration of mortgage was completed on the ground of 40 million won.

[Based on Recognition] Each of Gap evidence 1-5, 10 to 18, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number)

witness AA’s testimony, overall purport of pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Based on the provisional registration of this case completed by the plaintiff for the purpose of priority preservation, each land of this case

When the registration of transfer of ownership is completed, the registration of seizure of this case completed after the provisional registration of this case

shall be cancelled by the registration of invalidity.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) Defenses prior to the merits

Since the registration of seizure is cancelled ex officio by a registrar, the defendant is required to cancel the registration of seizure.

filing of an objection against a registrar or registry office, or filing of an objection

The method of filing a suit must be disputed.

2) Nullity of the provisional registration of this case (False indication)

The provisional registration of this case is a preservative measure and delinquent procedure while AA is delinquent in capital gains tax.

The provisional registration of this case shall be null and void in collusion with BB and shall be deemed null and void.

As long as there is no person, even if the registration of seizure of this case was completed later, it is not null and void.

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The court's decision in an objection proceeding that contests the disposition by a registrar or the propriety of such disposition;

A provisional registration shall be completed.

2) The debtor BB, the person holding the right to collateral security, the Saemaul Depository, and the maximum amount of the claim in each of the instant real property

With respect to the registration of creation of a mortgage near the amount of 650,000,000 won, A and BB shall all be the subject matter.

The testimony was made to the effect that the obligation was a substantial obligation of AA.

3) Upon completion of the provisional registration of this case, BB paid A for the purchase price, etc.

There is no evidence to acknowledge, at the request of AA, that the sum of the transfer proceeds between the Plaintiff and B is 5

The transfer contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and BB regarding the right to claim ownership transfer of KRW 70 million.

In fact, there is no money in fact, and the money paid by the Plaintiff in the purchase price is almost almost AA.

accepted and used.

5. Conclusion

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

M

AA

Since the plaintiff does not have the ability to confirm the substantive legal relationship between the parties, the plaintiff is not the plaintiff.

Even if there is a length of objection against a disposition by a registrar as alleged intentionally, the final power

In order to resolve the dispute, it is possible to bring an action against the Defendants.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da8657, Mar. 27, 1991).

We do not accept it.

4. Whether the provisional registration of this case is falsely indicated in conspiracy.

Comprehensively considering the basic facts as mentioned above and the testimony and arguments of AA and B

In full view of the following circumstances, the provisional registration of this case is in arrears with taxes by A.

It is reasonable to see that it is a false registration completed in collusion with BB to avoid default procedures;

The plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the provisional registration of this case is valid is without merit.

1) AA received a prior notice of capital gains tax assessment around November 2014, and then passed thereafter.

on January 7, 2015, to BB in the relationship between the representative director of the LL Fisheries Corporation and the director.

National Rotations

August 7, 2018

4, 2018.9

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant of the Gu office's branch office will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of seizure registration completed on April 23, 2015 by the Taean District Court of Daejeon on each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") with respect to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Transfer, etc. of ownership and provisional registration of each land of this case

1) On December 9, 2013, AA completed the registration of transfer on the grounds of sale and purchase on the same day with respect to the 4,430 square meters of Leewon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter referred to as "Before subdivision") and 3,159 square meters of land in the same Ri** (2) the transfer of ownership is completed on the ground of the same day; 3,159 square meters of forest * 3,159 square meters of forest * 1,176 square meters of forest * the same Ri*** * 1,176 square meters of forest * * 1,176 square meters of forest * * 1,176 square meters of forest * * 1).

3) BB concluded a sales contract on January 14, 2015, *** land and** on January 7, 2015, the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim (hereinafter referred to as “the provisional registration of this case”) was completed on January 7, 2015 due to trade reservation, and the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with KRW 3,306/4,430 of shares and 323-6 of the land before subdivision as of February 19, 2016.

5) On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of ownership transfer claim with the transfer proceeds of KRW 470 million as to the land 3,306/4,430 and **** before the division on June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of ownership transfer claim with the transfer proceeds of KRW 470,000,000,000, and ** 3,306/4,430 shares and *** on June 2, 2016.

6) Before subdivision **** The land was divided on October 17, 2016 and came to be 1,124 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”) of woodland 1,124 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”) such as 3,306 square meters of woodland ** 3,306 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”).

7) On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with A and each of the instant lands with the purchase price of KRW 570 million, and on the same day BB and**** each of the lands entered into a sales contract with the transfer price of ownership transfer claim with the transfer price of KRW 100 million.

8) The Plaintiff completed the registration of partial transfer of the right to claim ownership transfer on October 11, 2016 with respect to the share of 1,124/4,430 in land* land and* each of the land? The Plaintiff completed the registration of partial transfer of the right to claim ownership transfer on October 11, 2016, and that date.