The procedure for registration of cancellation can not be implemented again for the registration of seizure already cancelled.

If the registration of seizure of real estate has already been cancelled due to the completion of compulsory auction, the request to implement the cancellation registration procedure for the registration of seizure is without merit.

Article 45 (Procedures for Seizing Real Estate, etc.)

2016Na40858 Registration of Seizure or Cancellation of Real Estate

1.A

1.B,CC 2. Korea

October 19, 2016

November 16, 2016

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the registration of seizure completed on April 7, 201 by the Seoul Eastern District Court CC (CC), which was completed on April 7, 201 by No. 19233, the registration of seizure completed on November 28, 201 by the receipt of No. 74347 of the same registry office, the registration of seizure completed on September 6, 2010 by the Seoul East Eastern District Court CC (CC), the registration of seizure completed on September 6, 2010 by the receipt of No. 48987 of the same registry office, and the part concerning the registration of seizure completed on October 18, 2010 by the same registry office, shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's lawsuits corresponding to

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant BB Sin CC completed the receipt of April 22, 2009 (it seems to be a clerical error in the complaint on May 22, 2009) with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list in the attached list No. 1, and completed on April 7, 2010 by the same registry office as the cancellation registration procedure of each attachment completed on November 28, 2011 by the receipt of No. 74347 of the same registry office, and the defendant BB Sin CC completed on October 18, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list No. 2, and the defendant Korea completed the cancellation registration procedure under the receipt of No. 4897, Sept. 6, 2010 by the same registry office.

1. Ex officio determination

The cancellation registration refers to a registration that is executed for the purpose of legally extinguishing the entire registration in a case where all the registered matters of a certain registration are inconsistent with the substantive relations in the original or latter place. As such, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the registration already cancelled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da72802, Feb. 26, 2009).

In accordance with the above legal principles, the facts that each of the registrations of seizure (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") stated in the purport of the claim regarding each of the real estate listed in the list 1 and 2 of this case in the separate sheet are not disputed between the parties. However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in subparagraph 5, the fact that each of the registrations of seizure of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of cancellation of seizure of this case") of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") had already been cancelled, except for the registration of seizure completed on April 22, 2009 by the Seoul East Eastern District Court CC registry as of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of seizure of this case") completed on April 22, 2009. Thus,

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff asserts that the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list is real estate owned by the Korea EE Association (hereinafter referred to as the "EE Association"), which is owned by the plaintiff, and is exempted from taxes, such as acquisition tax and registration tax, for non-profit purposes by the organization for religious purposes, since the defendant BB city imposed tax on the above real estate, and the registration of the remaining seizure of this case was completed due to delinquency in tax payment, the remaining seizure registration of this case is null and void. The plaintiff sought cancellation of the remaining seizure registration of this case against the defendant BB city. However, the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list of the attached list does not belong to the plaintiff, but to the ownership of the EE church, and there is no right to seek cancellation of the remaining seizure registration of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's lawsuits, the part seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of the cancellation registration of this case shall be dismissed, and the part seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of the remaining registration of this case shall be dismissed, and since the judgment of the first instance court which has different conclusions is unfair, it shall be decided as per Disposition.