1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s claim was previously owned by the Plaintiff, but around 1995, the land was expropriated in Yangsan-si D, Yangsan-si and owned D surface without any separate transfer registration.

Nevertheless, the Defendant completed each of the instant seizure registrations on the premise that the instant land is still owned by the Plaintiff on the premise that the instant land is still owned by the Plaintiff, thereby making a fine as an executive title.

Furthermore, since the deposit claim stated in the purport of the claim made in the name of the plaintiff is merely 81,505 won and its balance is thus prohibited from seizure under Article 246 (1) 8 of the Civil Execution Act, the plaintiff's deposit claim is prohibited from seizure.

Therefore, seizure of the above deposit claim is also null and void.

The plaintiff can assert the completion of the statute of limitations of a fine, the statute of limitations of which has been suspended due to the seizure of each of the instant seizures, so there is a benefit to seek the confirmation of invalidity by a lawsuit.

2. Determination

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment of confirmation in order to have the Plaintiff’s right or legal status in present apprehensions and risks and to eliminate such apprehensions and risks (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da67115, Sept. 8, 201).

First, even if the land of this case is owned as D pages in Yangsan City, if the property of a third party, who is not the owner, is seized, it cannot be deemed that there is any apprehension and danger in its rights or legal status. Thus, the plaintiff has no interest to dispute the validity of the seizure registration of the land of this case.

Furthermore, the seizure against the property owned by a third party, which is not a debtor, or the seizure against the claim prohibited from seizure under the Civil Execution Act is null and void. As such, such seizure does not interrupt extinctive prescription of the preserved right or the prescription of a fine, so that the plaintiff can confirm the invalidity of each of the above seizure.