Attachment registration made against a delinquent taxpayer's right to collateral security shall be lawful.

Since there is no evidence to deem the mortgage of this case as invalid because the mortgage of this case was actually established without any secured claim or it was conspired with others, there is no error in the seizure registration made against the debtor's mortgage of this case.

Contents are the same as attachment.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Seoul Central District Court 2015Na45061 De-mortgage

EAA and 3

Republic of Korea Overseas2

on 02 05 October 2016

December 17, 2016

U. S. P. P. L. L. L. L. L. L.S.

- Department of Civil Affairs 4

sales agreement

2015Na45061 Cancellation of the right to collateral security

1. The person taking charge of the actions against the deceased regularA type;

(a) KimB

Distribution of Seoul OO-gu 24-gil 55, EO-Ma 203(O-dong, 200)

(b) KimCC;

United States of America Meanland Macrobro Luxembourg 11305

(c) KimD

U.S. New Zealand S. Round Rawa 655

2. KimB

Distribution of Seoul OO-gu 24-gil 55, EO-Ma 203(O-dong, 200)

3. KimCC;

United States of America Meanland Macrobro Luxembourg 11305

4. KimD

U.S. New Zealand S. Round Rawa 655

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

1. KimE;

Seoyang-gu Seoyang-si river line 92, 502 Dong 1101 (Yeongdong-gu and Yeak village 5 apartment complex)

2. Korea;

Legal Representative Kim Hyun-ro

Litigation Performers Lee H

3. KimG;

23, 105, 1306, 1306, Sungnam-gu, Sung-nam-si (Guundong-dong and Do-un village-type village-type apartment)

1. 3 Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Park J, Attorney Park J

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da529760 Decided July 15, 2015

February 5, 2016

February 17, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

In the first place, with respect to the plaintiffs' OOO-dong 263-1 square meters, defendant KimE will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration procedure for each registration of cancellation of each registration of each registration of each of the right to collateral security completed as of October 16, 2014, which was completed as of December 6, 2005 by the Seoul Central District Court registration No. 102860, which was completed as of December 6, 2005, the registration of the right to collateral security completed as of June 9, 2014 by the same registry office, the right to collateral security completed as of October 16, 2014, which was completed as of October 23303 by the same registry office.

Preliminaryly, with respect to the plaintiffs' OOO-dong 263-1 m2,041 m2, defendant KimE performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage completed on December 6, 2005 by the Seoul Central District Court Registry No. 102860, Dec. 6, 2005, and defendant Republic of Korea and KimG expressed their intention of each acceptance on the registration of cancellation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant Kim E-E and the deceased Kim K-K (hereinafter referred to as "the network") are funds every half of March 24, 1970.

After purchasing real estate by investing it in the name of defendant Kim E-E or deceased, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant Kim E-E or deceased, and later, he agreed to dispose of the real estate and to have it divided into half of the profits (hereinafter referred to as "the

B. Defendant KimE and the Deceased around that time pursuant to the instant trade agreement, Defendant Kim E-E and the Deceased O-dong Seoul O-dong pursuant to the instant trade agreement.

1-1417 2,817 m2 and 12 m2 in each of the land located in the OOdong in Seoul, OO-dong, ② 1,041/2,562 shares among the 263-1 m2,562 m2, ③ 116 m2 and 12 m2 in each of the above O-dong land purchased 12 m2 in each of the above O-dong land under Defendant Kim E-E on March 25, 1970, and the above O-dong land was completed on June 18, 196 in each of the deceased’s name.

After that, on August 29, 2005, an OOO-dong 263-1 m2,562 m2,000 square meters were divided into 263-3 m263-3 m2,521 m2, such as 263-1 m263-1 m2,041 m2, and the deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 6, 2005 on the remaining 1,521/2,562 shares of the instant land, which was solely owned by the deceased.

C. Defendant KimE and the Deceased secured their settlement obligation under the instant business agreement.

On September 16, 1998, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter "provisional registration of this case") was made with respect to the share in the name of defendant Kim E-E against the above OE land 12 parcels. ② With respect to the land of this case, the registration of co-owned property partition was made in the name of defendant KimE, Seoul Central District Court No. 102860, Dec. 6, 2005, the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was made in the name of defendant KimE, with the registration of the co-owned property partition as of December 6, 2005.

D. After that, on May 31, 2010, Defendant Kim E-E’s application of Y, the creditor of Defendant KimE

The procedure for compulsory sale by official auction was initiated with respect to the above 12 OOdong (each 1/3 share) and sold to the third party on May 21, 2012. The provisional registration of this case thereafter became final and conclusive in the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kadan167156 against the plaintiffs, which was filed against the plaintiffs, and the judgment against the plaintiffs was revoked on January 4, 2013.

E. After that, the Defendant’s Republic of Korea issued a disposition on default of national taxes by Defendant KimE.

On June 9, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court registered the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, and entered the registration of seizure on the instant land as of June 9, 2014. Defendant Kim GG received a decision of provisional seizure of claims against Defendant KimE regarding the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant seizure registrations”) by means of obtaining a collection order, such as transfer of the previous provisional seizure on the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “OO method personnel”), and the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant seizure registrations”) upon obtaining a collection order from the same registry office as of October 16, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant seizure registrations”).

F. Meanwhile, the deceased died on November 13, 2009 and jointly succeeded to the deceased’s property by the deceased KimB, KimCC, and KimD, who are his wife, and his wife. After that, on September 5, 2015, the deceased died on September 5, 2015, during the instant lawsuit, the deceased KimB, KimCC, and KimD jointly succeeded to the deceased’s property and taken over the instant lawsuit proceedings.

G. In addition to the instant case, the Plaintiffs filed against Defendant KimE with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gaz.

In 26748, Defendant KimE filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiffs seeking the payment of settlement amount following the termination of the instant partnership agreement. Defendant KimE also filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs for the registration of ownership transfer based on unjust enrichment return as to the instant land and the instant land and the instant land under OE-dong 262 by Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap12890. On January 21, 2016, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na21631, 2015Na21648 (Counterclaim)) decided on January 21, 2016, Defendant KimE paid the Plaintiffs KRW 401,652,333 of each of the instant land and the instant land under OE-dong 262, and the Plaintiffs were paid KRW 401,652,333 of each of the instant land and each of the instant land under the settlement recommendation procedure to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the partnership.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1;

The purport of all pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) First, Defendant Kim E-E shall register the creation of a new mortgage on the following grounds to the Plaintiffs:

shall have an obligation to implement the registration procedures for cancellation.

① The instant collateral security is a type that prevents the Deceased from arbitrarily disposing of the provisional registration of the instant case.

Since food settings have been established without any secured claim from the beginning, it is invalid as a false marking that has been conspired.

(2) Even if the deceased’s right to collateral security of this case was voluntarily registered based on the provisional registration of this case.

In the case of this case, even if the defendant Kim E is to secure the loss to be suffered by the defendant Kim E,

As provisional registration is cancelled, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security has already been extinguished.

③ In addition, as revealed in the relevant case, the Plaintiffs’ instant partnership agreement

Accordingly, there is no settlement amount to be paid to Defendant KimE, and rather Defendant KimE is only obligated to pay a large amount of settlement to the plaintiffs, so in this respect, the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security does not exist or has already terminated.

2) Next, the ground for the establishment of a mortgage of this case is null and void or the secured debt of this case

As long as the right has already expired, both the seizure disposition by Defendant Republic of Korea and the seizure order received by Defendant KimGG on the secured claim of the instant right to collateral are null and void. As such, Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant Kimwon are obligated to implement the cancellation registration procedure for each registration of the instant seizure or to express their consent to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage.

B. Determination

1) When one of the union members dies in an enterprise which is a partnership under the Civil Act, special circumstances

Unless there exist special circumstances, a union’s withdrawal from a partnership relationship under Article 717 of the Civil Act is naturally withdrawn from the partnership relationship. On the other hand, if one of the two partnership withdraws, the partnership relationship is terminated, but, barring any special circumstance, the partnership is not dissolved, and the property that belongs to the partnership’s joint ownership belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining union members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da49693, 49709, Mar. 9, 2006): Provided, That where the partnership’s property is real estate, the cause of the change in the real right is the juristic act that takes place as withdrawal from the partnership relationship, and only the registration that the remaining union’s sole ownership should be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2807, Jan. 27, 201).

2) According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant KimE and the Deceased’s mutual withdrawal through the instant trade agreement.

Therefore, inasmuch as Defendant KimE and two members agreed to conduct a joint business seeking profits from resale by purchasing and disposing of real estate, and the deceased died and left from partnership relations, the instant land, which is the property of the association, belongs to the sole ownership of Defendant KimE, the remaining members, and thus, the Plaintiffs, as a general successor of the deceased, are liable to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of withdrawal from partnership with respect to the instant land. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant KimE, which is entitled to claim for removal of interference based on ownership, cannot be permitted under the good faith principle. Even if Defendant KimE’s aforementioned obligation to transfer ownership of the Plaintiffs and obligation to prohibit settlement against the Plaintiffs in concurrent performance relation, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed otherwise. Furthermore, as long as the Defendants’ claim against Defendant KimE is not permissible under the good faith principle, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the remaining Defendants cannot be seen as being permissible.

3) In addition, according to the above facts of recognition, the mortgage of this case is the share following the withdrawal from the partnership.

As well as the distribution of residual property following the calculation or the dissolution of the association, it is reasonable to view that the agreement between the withdrawing partner and the withdrawing partner with respect to the property of the association that remains as the sole ownership of the remaining union members upon the termination of the partnership relationship with the withdrawal of one union member. Thus, even though Defendant KimE, the remaining union member due to the withdrawal from the association of the deceased, has the obligation to return to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the deceased's share out of the union property in money, and the plaintiffs are not obligated to pay such settlement prohibition, it cannot be concluded that the secured claim of this case has already been extinguished unless the plaintiffs bear the obligation to transfer ownership due to the withdrawal from the association with respect to the land of this case to Defendant KimE, and there is no evidence to deem that the secured claim of this case has already been established without the secured claim or null and void as a false declaration in collusion. Accordingly, the above plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the establishment registration of a mortgage of this case was null and void or its secured claim has already been extinguished is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be dismissed for all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

The decision is reasonable with this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.