A. Whether the owner of the real estate claims cancellation of the invalid provisional seizure registration

B. The case that the court of final appeal reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and reversed the judgment and remanded to the first instance court

(a) If a registration of provisional seizure on a real estate is null and void, the owner of the real estate may request the creditor of the provisional seizure to cancel the registration of provisional seizure;

B. The case that the court of final appeal reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and reversed the judgment and remanded to the first instance court

A. Article 214 of the Civil Act, Article 710 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 388 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act

Loan Development Corporation

Defendant 1 and two others, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2’s Hak-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na4172 delivered on July 1, 1987

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1 and 2 and all of the defendant's appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

2. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant Il Bank shall be reversed, and the part regarding the above Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

3. The portion of the claim against Defendant Il Bank shall be remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court.

4. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant with respect to the dismissal of appeal.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, 28 co-owners of the building site at the time of construction of the above building including Nonparty 1 are co-owners of the above building site at the time of construction around April 1970, and their co-ownership shares are co-owned by the owners of the above building site, 5 shares of Nonparty 2 and 28 shares of the remaining people, and 33 shares of the above non-party 1 among them shall be 1/33, but the building cost of the building shall be 70,000 shares per 1/33 shares of the above building acquired after the completion of construction. Since the above construction cost of the building is no more than 1/33 shares of the above building site, the court below's decision that the above non-party 1 and the above construction permit is no more than 1/3 of the above new building site owner's own share and the above construction permit is no more than 9 of the above building site's new construction permit to be entered in the list of co-ownership of the above building site.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the co-owners of the building of this case, including the non-party 4 and the non-party 20 (the total share is 30.5/190) constituted the apartment management committee and elected the non-party 4 as its representative for the management and maintenance of the building of this case on March 9, 1984. The defendant 1, on July 5, 1985, set the portion of the defendant's possession as stated in the purport of the claim from the above non-party 4 for the rental deposit of 50 million won, monthly rent of 700,000 won, and monthly rent of 70,000 won, and from the same date as the lease deposit of this case to the date of July 4, 1987, the court below did not err by re-fixing the above fact from the above non-party 4 for the rental deposit of 10,000,000 won, monthly rent of 10,9050.1.6.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal against Defendant Il-il Bank.

Where the registration of provisional seizure is null and void, the owner of the real estate may file a claim against the creditor of provisional seizure for the cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure. In this case, as asserted by the plaintiff, if the registration of provisional seizure is invalid at the time of the original bank, the plaintiff may file a claim against the defendant Il-il Bank for the cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure. Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Il-il Bank claiming that the registration of provisional seizure is null and void is legitimate.

Unlike its opinion, the judgment of the court below is justified in the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Il Il Bank, claiming the cancellation of the provisional seizure registration at the original time of the defendant Il Bank, and thus dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the requirements for filing a lawsuit.

3. We examine Defendant Republic of Korea’s grounds for appeal.

As determined by the court below, the registration of preservation of ownership in the non-party 1, which was made by marking it as a building listed in the attached Table 1 at the original time, is valid, and later, the registration of preservation of ownership in the non-party 1, which was made in the attached Table 2 at the original time, is indicated as a building listed in the attached Table 2 at the original time, and if it is invalidated as a double registration on the building of this case, the registration of transfer of ownership in the non-party 3, which was made based on the invalid registration of preservation, and the registration of seizure in the defendant Republic of Korea on the ground of the non-party's default of national taxes, shall also

4. Therefore, pursuant to Articles 407, 395, 386, and 388 of the Civil Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant Jeju Bank among the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court of first instance in order to revoke the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance and to make a new trial, and that part of the case is remanded to the court of first instance. All appeals against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 and appeals against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing

Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)