Whether a seizure disposition is null and void without the indication of a delinquent taxpayer and a registered titleholder;

In cases where the indication of a registration titleholder is inconsistent with that of a registration titleholder even though the indication of a registration titleholder is inconsistent with that of a registration titleholder, it is difficult to deem that the tax authority has a duty to entrust the registration of seizure through the registration of change of indication of a registration titleholder.

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

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

In the first place, the plaintiff ○○○ Leisure Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "○○○ Leisure Industry"), the defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of seizure on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongducheon Registry"), which was received on February 24, 2005 by 2207, with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongducheoncheon Registry"), and the defendant Ansan-si, with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet as indicated in paragraph (6) of the separate attachment registration completed on July 19, 2005 by 9582, Dongducheon-cheon Registry, 205. Preliminaryly, the defendant Republic of Korea shall execute the procedure for cancellation registration of each attachment registration completed on July 19, 2005 as stated in paragraph (6) of the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "O○○ Leisure Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongcheon-si") with 20% interest per annum from the next day to the delivery date.

1. Basic facts

A. On Apr. 16, 200, Plaintiff ○ Leisure purchased KRW 300,000,000 (hereinafter the instant sales contract) for the purpose of running a golf course with the land of nine parcels, including each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”), which was owned by Kim Jong-kon since Dec. 31, 1976, and agreed to pay KRW 200,000,000, including the down payment of KRW 30,000,000 and the intermediate payment of KRW 170,00,000,000 at the same time as the payment of all documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and the remaining balance of KRW 1,00,000,000,000, which was filed at the time of filing a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, was settled and paid when the lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration becomes final and conclusive.

B. On January 12, 2005, according to the instant sales contract, Plaintiff ○○ Leisure filed an application for ownership transfer registration with the same Ducheon-dong registry office on January 12, 2005. At the time, each of the real estate-related registers of this case was indicated as Kim○-dong, Seoul, ○○○○○○-dong, 1,307, the actual address of the owner. As the address of the owner was indicated as ○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○-dong, 1,307, the actual address of Kim○-dong, the name of the apartment, the number of the apartment and the number of the houses are the same, but only the lot number are the same). Kim○-dong filed an application for ownership transfer registration under his name on December 31, 1976, and filed an application for ownership transfer registration with the name of the owner and the owner, respectively, to Kim○-dong at the time of application

C. On January 12, 2005, the date of application for the correction registration of the indication of each of the registered titleholders of this case: (a) an abstract of resident registration card, a certified copy of closed register, and a certificate of the same person was submitted as evidence; (b) an applicant was issued an order of correction on the same day due to lack of explanatory materials from Nonparty Kim Jong-○, such as the same registry office; and (c) on January 18, 2005, an applicant submitted a certificate of guarantee on January 18, 2005, a certified copy of closed register, a certified copy of land cadastre, a copy of old land cadastre, and a certified copy of family registry; (d) Kim Sung-sung did not enter the resident registration number of Kim Jong-sung in the computerized registry, computerized registry, and closed registry; and (e) the applicant did not present a certified copy, a certified copy, a certified copy, a certified copy, a certified copy, and a certified copy of family registry; and (e) the applicant did not present an application for the registration of change of ownership under Article 5 of the Real Estate Act.

D. On March 22, 2005, Kim○-dong, Seoul ○○○○○ apartment, 1-2, 307, 1-681, 1-681, 307, 2007, each of the instant real estates, submitted a receipt for the overall land of the instant real estate on April 4, 2005 with additional explanatory materials, and submitted a revised registration to the District Court on August 4, 2005, stating that the registration titleholder Kim○-dong, Seoul, 2005, 307, which is the address of Kim○-dong, Seoul, 2005, where the registration titleholder Kim○-dong, 1-681, 1-681, 1-307, 200, 300, 1-1, 307, 2007, 207, 2001, 201-1, 3007, 2007.

의정부지방법원은 위 각 이의신청사건의 결정에서, 구 등기부에 소유자의 한자 이름만이 수기로 기재되었는데 기(伎)자와 지(衼)자는 글자체가 유사하여 수기로 기재될 경우 착오기재가 발생할 개연성이 높아 보이는 점, 등기부상 소유자의 주소와 신청인의 소유권이전등기신청 당시 주민등록지를 비교하여 보면 비록 아파트의 소재 지번은 사이하나, 아파트 소재지의 동명, 아파트의 명칭 및 동수와 호가 모두 일치하는 점, 신청인의 형제 중 김○기라는 이름을 가진 사람은 없는 점, 김○지가 이 사건 각 부동산에 인접한 여러 필지에 걸쳐 상당한 면적의 임야를 자신 명의로 소유하고 있었던 점에 미루어 보아 김○기와 김○지가 동일인임을 인정할 수 있다는 것을 이유로 들었다.

E. Meanwhile, the defendant Republic of Korea failed to pay gift tax to be paid by Kim ○ by himself. On February 22, 2005, prior to the registration of correction of indication of each of the above registered titleholders as to each of the instant real estate, the defendant Republic of Korea entrusted the registration of seizure pursuant to the disposition of national taxes in arrears on each of the instant real estate owned by Kim ○ in the Dong-cheon Registry on February 22, 2005, and on February 24, 2005, the seizure registration was completed on each of the instant real estate claims as to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter the instant seizure of the Republic of Korea). During the period, the non-party ○○, ○○, and ○○ was entrusted with the registration of seizure pursuant to the disposition of arrears as above, the delinquent taxpayer and the registration obligor pursuant to the attachment registration request as to each of the instant real estate in the attachment report and the registration of the registration obligor pursuant to the registration request as to each of the instant real estate in accordance

F. In addition, as Kimyang-si failed to pay the resident tax to be paid by himself, on July 13, 2005, before the registration for correction of indication of each of the above registered titleholders was made, on each of the real estate in this case, on July 13, 2005, the Dong Ducheon-gu requested the registration of seizure due to the disposition of local tax in arrears on each of the real estate in this case as stated in the attached list 1 and 6 of Kim Jong-dong in the 19th of the same month, and on the 19th of the same month, the registration of seizure was completed (hereinafter the seizure of each of the real estate in this case at Ansan-gu). During the period, Oyang-gu, who is a public official in charge of local tax affairs of the Gyeyang-gu office, entrusted the registration of seizure by the disposition of delinquent local tax in arrears, and on the registration request of seizure and the registration request, the person responsible for registration in accordance with the registration request of the delinquent taxpayer in the attachment report and the person liable for registration at that at that time entered each of the registration.

G. Thereafter, with respect to each of the instant real estate, the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on July 16, 2004, and the Plaintiff ○○ Leisure Development Industry completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on July 26, 2007, respectively, on July 26, 2007, for nine months from the date of the registration of correction under each of the instant sub-paragraph (d) above, or on July 16, 2006.

H. Meanwhile, on October 23, 2007, Plaintiff ○○○ (hereinafter “○○”) filed a complaint with the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office for the crime of abuse by official authority against the public officials belonging to the Jung-gu District Court whose name is unknown, on the grounds that the public officials were suspected of forging official documents and uttering of forged official documents regarding the maximum ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, and Kim○, and the public officials belonging to the above Su-gu District Public Prosecutor’s Office were convicted of neglecting official duties on March 5, 2008.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 9; 11; 12; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers); the testimony of OO decoration of witness; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' claims

(a) The primary claim

In a case where the delinquent taxpayer and the titleholder are not in accord with the general business, the tax authorities shall agree with the delinquent taxpayer and the titleholder through the procedure for correcting the indication of the titleholder, and may not request the attachment and registration of the delinquent taxpayer by falsely stating the delinquent taxpayer in the titleholder, so each disposition of the seizure of the Republic of Korea of this case and each disposition of the seizure of this case is null and void by the attachment attachment report and the attachment registration of this case, and the attachment registration of this case is also null and void. As such, each registration of the seizure of this case and each of the seizure registration of this case is null and void, the registration of each seizure of the Republic of Korea of this case shall be canceled.In the meantime, even though the public official of the Republic of Korea and the ○○○○ and the small and medium ○ were aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had a interest in purchasing each of the real estate of this case, it is null and void in violation of social order.

(b) Preliminary claim

The registration officer Kim Sung-sung rejected the application for the registration of change and the application for the registration of change of ownership of each of the instant registration titleholders, and ordered the preparation of false attachment report and the application for the registration of change of ownership. During the period of time, public officials belonging to Gyeyang District Court prepared a false attachment report and the application for the registration of seizure in accordance with the instruction of Kim Jong-sung, etc., and seized each of the instant real estate in accordance with the order of the registration officer Kim Jong-young, and public officials belonging to the Jung-gu District Court whose name is unknown did not withdraw the application for the registration of change of ownership of each of the instant real estate, but did not make a decision on the rejection of the application for the registration of change of ownership of each of the instant real estate by unfairly forcing the plaintiff ○○○○ by several calls to withdraw the objection against the application for the registration of change of ownership of each of the instant real estate, and the government court's decision to revoke the application for the registration of change of ownership of each of the instant real estate owners, and thus, the plaintiff's compensation for damages cannot be paid to the plaintiff 3000.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the defect must be objectively obvious because it violates the important part of the law and is objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and clear, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered from a teleological perspective and it should be reasonably considered about the specificity of the case itself at the same time. In addition, the attachment itself shall not be deemed null and void on the ground of minor procedural error, which does not form the defect in the preparation of the attachment report or an essential element of the attachment.

In light of the above, as seen earlier, in the case of an objection against the disposition of ○○○○○○ Office’s 2005 Blux2, etc. of the same court, Kim○○○○, indicated as the registered titleholder of each of the instant real estate, is merely an error due to computer transfer on the registry, and thus, it can be regarded as the same person as Kim○○. Therefore, each of the instant real estate was owned by the same person regardless of before and after the change of the registered titleholder’s indication. ② Taxes have high public interest and public interest as the main source of financial income for the activities of the State or local governments. Accordingly, inasmuch as the superior position of the registered titleholder is recognized at the time of the determination and collection of tax claims, it is difficult to unilaterally handle the registration according to the request of the registered titleholder and the registration based on the joint application of the registered titleholder, which is made between the registered titleholder and the person liable for registration. ③ In light of the above, inasmuch as the Defendants’ respective seizure of the instant real estate and the regulations on the registration of ○○○○ Office’s 2, one of the instant real Estate.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the main claim

In order for a defective administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect has violated the main part of the law, and it should be objectively clear. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered from a teleological perspective and reasonable consideration of the characteristics of the specific case itself at the same time. It shall not be deemed null and void for reasons of minor procedural errors, which do not form the essential elements of the preparation of the attachment report or other attachment.

In light of the above, as seen earlier, in the case of an objection against the disposition by an institution, including the 2005 House2, the District Court of the Republic of Korea: (i) it is difficult for each of the instant real estate registered titleholder to be considered as the same person as the Maim area because it is merely an error due to an error in data transfer on the registry, and thus, it is difficult to view that each of the instant real estate was owned by the same person regardless of before and after the change of indication on the registry; (ii) tax is the main source of financial revenue for the activities of the State or a local government, and is recognized as the superior position of the person liable for taxation at the time of confirmation and collection of tax claims; (iii) it is difficult for each of the instant registered titleholder to regard that the registration of the instant real estate is identical to the registration of the Ma○○ Office’s request and the registration of Kimyang as the one liable for registration, and thus, it is difficult for each of the registered titleholder to regard that the registration of the instant real estate is identical to the registration of the registration of the attachment of the Republic of this case.

In addition, there is no evidence that ○○, ○○, and Plaintiff ○○, who is only a public official belonging to the Gyeyang Tax Office, filed an application for ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate, or purchased each of the instant real estate under the name of Plaintiff ○○, and completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of Plaintiff ○○, as well as the surrounding land of the instant real estate. There is no evidence to acknowledge that at the time of the seizure disposition on each of the instant real estate, the attachment report or the registration request cannot be deemed to have been made false, as seen above. In light of the fact that Plaintiff ○○○, which filed a complaint against the lower court for the crime of preparation of false public documents or abuse of authority, all of the results of the complaint by Defendant ○○ and filed a non-prosecution disposition without suspicion, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants made a seizure disposition for the purpose of infringing the rights of the Plaintiffs, and therefore there is no ground for invalidation contrary to social order.

B. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A registrar has the authority to examine whether documents necessary for an application for registration have been submitted in accordance with the Registration of Real Estate Act, and whether such documents have been submitted in the form and form of documents submitted, but there is no authority to examine whether such application for registration conforms with the legal relationship under the substantive law, and a registrar shall examine whether the application for registration is legitimate by examining documents directly submitted or comparing such documents with the registry, etc., and it is recognized by negligence only if the average registrar in charge of registration affairs has not paid due attention to the ordinary duty of care to be prepared in the process of examining the application for

In light of the fact that the registration officer, who was the registration officer of each of the real estate of this case, has been in need of prompt and appropriate handling of the case of mass application for registration, as well as the fact that it is difficult for the registration officer to examine the situation of the surrounding land of this case to be applied for registration, and to examine the relation of use or ownership of each of the above real estate at the time of application for registration. Thus, it is difficult to view that the registration officer, who was the registration officer of this case, has an obligation to use or ownership of each of the above real estate at the time of application for registration, as it is difficult to view that the registration officer, who was the registration officer of this case, has an ordinary duty to use or use the same real estate as the registration certificate of this case, because it is difficult to view that the registration officer, who was the registration officer of this case, has an obligation to use or own the real estate of this case, and that there is an address or ownership of each of the above real estate of this case, such as the name and address of each of the above real estate in Seoul Kim○-dong-dong-dong-gu, and the name of this case.

In addition, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that Kim ○ and Kim ○ are the same person, commission registration and registration cannot be treated equally with the application registration of the person entitled to make a registration and the person obliged to make a registration; in order to secure the collection of tax claims having high level of public interest and public interest in the superior position of the person entitled to taxation, Kim ○ and Kim ○ made a request for registration in accordance with a disposition on default; as a result of the complaint filed by the Plaintiff ○○○, the Defendants’ official questioning members belonging to the Defendants cannot be deemed to have made a false report on attachment and registration.

그리고 증인 오○훈의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 오○훈은 원고 ○○레져로부터 위임을 받아 이사건 각 부동산에 대한 소유권이전등기신청 업무를 수행한 법뭄사인데, 이름을 알 수 없는 의정부지방법원 소속 공무원이 오○훈에게 단 한 차계 전화하여 이 사건 각 부동산에 고나한 소유권이전등기신청을 각하한 것은 등기명의인표시경정이 이루어지지 않았기 때문이므로 소유권이전등기신청 각하처분에 대한 이의신청이 의미가 없다라는 취지의 말을 한 사실, 이에 오○훈도 위 이의신청이 의미가 없는 것이라고 동의하고, 원고 ○○레져와 상의하고 나서 원고 ○○레져가 위 이의신청을 취하해도 괜찬다고 하여 위 이의신청을 취하한 사실을 인정할 수 있을 뿐, 위 의정부지방법원 공무원이 원고 ○○레져에게 위 이의신청을 취하도록 여러 차례 전화하여 부당하게 강요하였음을 인정할 증거가 없고, 의정부지방법원이 2005.8.4. 이 사건 각 등기명의이니표시경정등기 결정을 한 사실은 앞에서 본 바와 같고, 원고 ○○레져는 2005.8.17. 이 사건 각 부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기신청 각하처분에 대한 이의신청인 의정부지방법원 2005비단4 등기관처분에 대한이의신청을 취하한 사실은 이 법원에 현저하므로, 이 사건 각 부동산 소유권이전등기신청에 대한 이의신청을 취하하자 의정부지방법원이 이 사건 각 등기명의인표시경정등기 신청 각하처분을 취소하자 의정부지방법원이 이 사건 각 등기명의인표시경정등기 신청 각하처분을 취소한다는 결정을 하였다는 원고 ○○레져의 주장은 이유 없고, 달리 피고 대한민국 소속 공무원들이 고의 또는 과실로 원고 동인레져에 대하여 공동하여 불법행위를 저지른 사실을 인정할 증거가 없다(더욱이 원고 ○○레져는 골프장 사업을 하기 위하여 이 사건 매매계약을 체결하였고, 이 사건 매매계약 당시 계약금과 중도금을 김○지로부터 소유권이전등기에 필요한 서류를 교부받음과 동시에 지급하기로 약정한 사실, 이 사건 각 부동산에 관하여, 2005.2.24.에 이 사건 압류등기가 마쳐진 사실, 원고 ○○레져는 이 사건 각 등기명의인표시경정등기가 마쳐진 날로부터 9개월 정도나 지난 2006.5.16.에 이르러 이 사건 각 부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실은 앞에서 인정한 바와 같은바, 이에 따르면, 원고 ○○레져로서는 이 사건 각 부동산에 관한 자신 명의로의 소유권이전등기 시에 이 사건 매매계약의 계약금과 중도금 합계 200,000,000원을 지급하면 되는 것인데, 이러한 동시이행항변권을 포기하고 미리 매매대금 300,000,000원 전부를 지급하였다거나, 그렇지 않고 이미 이 사건 대한민국의 각 압류등기 및 이 사건 안양시의 각 압류등기가 선행하고 있는 상태에서 위 매매대금을 모두 지급하였다면, 위 매매대금의 지급이 피고들의 압류등기에 따른 손해라 보기도 어렵다.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.