Whether provisional seizure, etc. shall be cancelled in all after a final judgment of winning the claim for cancellation registration against the owner of real estate becomes final and conclusive.

Where a provisional disposition is cancelled after the registration of the right to collateral security or provisional seizure which ceases to exist due to the sale, it shall be cancelled by sale, and the provisional disposition itself shall not be the right to distribute, and the plaintiff's claim shall not be reasonable.

Article 5 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Gohap2971

Kim 00

Korea

June 19, 2014

July 3, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Defendants notify the Plaintiff of the purport that, with respect to the amount distributed pursuant to the distribution schedule prepared on July 17, 2013 in the distribution procedure of Suwon District Court 2012ta District Court 2945, Defendant Republic of Korea was KRW 000, KRW 000 for Defendant 00, KRW 000 for Defendant 00, KRW 000 for Defendant 00 for the cooperative, KRW 000 for the Foundation of 000 for the Foundation of 000 for the Foundation of 000, and KRW 00 for the Foundation of 00 for each claim for dividend payment, Defendant 00 for the said claim was transferred to the Republic of Korea.

1. Basic facts

A. As 00: (a) 00: (a) an agricultural cooperative, who was owned by Defendant 00, filed a request for auction to exercise a security right at Suwon District Court 201,2945, on June 15, 2012; (b) 00: (c) the said court rendered a decision to commence auction on June 15, 2012; and (d) the entry registration was completed on the same date (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction”); and (c) the instant auction procedure was conducted on June 14, 2013, and sold the instant real estate on June 14, 2013.

B. On the other hand, the distribution schedule was prepared on July 17, 2013, and the defendant Republic of Korea was the holder of the right to deliver (the pertinent tax).

00 won, 000 won as the holder of the right of delivery (general tax), 000 won as the holder of the right of delivery (relevant tax), 000 won as the holder of the right of delivery (general tax), and 000 won as the holder of the right of provisional seizure (15951 of the receipt of the same registry office on June 13, 201, the claimed amount of KRW 000 as the owner of the right of provisional seizure, Defendant 000 as the holder of the right of provisional seizure (115951 of the same registry office on June 13, 2012, and KRW 197699 of the receipt of the same registry office on December 22, 201, the claimed amount of KRW 00, the claimed amount of KRW 18701 of the receipt of the same registry office on February 15, 201, and Defendant 00 as the owner of the surplus.

C. Meanwhile, on November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff’s title to the instant real estate under Article 17929 of the same registry office’s receipt by the same registry office.

claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of invalidity of cause shall be a provisional disposition, etc. with the right to be preserved.

The flag has been completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant real estate is actually owned by the Plaintiff and is in title trust with Defendant 00. As such, the registration of ownership transfer in Defendant 00 is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. The Plaintiff completed the instant real estate on November 23, 201 and filed a claim against Defendant 00 for cancellation of ownership transfer registration and filed a favorable judgment prior to the completion of the instant auction procedure on November 6, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 29, 2012, and thus, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on November 29, 2012.

The remaining defendants except the defendant Lee 00, subordinate to the registration of disposition, (hereinafter referred to as the "Bab's defendants") cannot oppose the plaintiff by the priority preservation effect of provisional disposition, so there is no right to receive dividends in relation to the plaintiff, or even though the trustee is not the creditor of the defendant Lee 00.

Defendant 00, by receiving a dividend from the real property owned by the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have been paid by each

Since profit-making without seal and loss to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the dividend payment claim to the Plaintiff by transferring it.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

In the real estate auction procedure, where a provisional disposition registration for prohibition of disposal has been made more than the registration of the right to collateral security or the provisional seizure extinguished by the sale, the provisional disposition itself shall not only be revoked by the sale, but also by itself, the right to demand distribution shall not be the owner of the right to dividends. In addition, where a creditor to demand distribution has not made a lawful demand for distribution by the date of the successful bid, even if it is a creditor under the substantive law, and even if it is not possible to receive a distribution from the proceeds of the successful bid. Therefore, if a creditor to demand distribution fails to make a lawful demand for distribution, and the distribution has been made in accordance with the distribution schedule prepared and confirmed by the creditor to exclude him from the distribution, and the distribution has been made in accordance with the final and conclusive distribution schedule, it shall not be deemed that there is no legal ground for this to have been distributed to other creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da28304, Dec. 20, 196).

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3-1 and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff won a provisional disposition on Nov. 23, 201 with respect to the real estate of this case on Nov. 23, 201, filed a lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendant Lee 00 on Nov. 6, 2012, and won a favorable judgment on Nov. 29, 2012. However, the plaintiff's provisional disposition prior to the execution of the restoration procedure is higher than the establishment registration of neighboring agricultural cooperatives and thus cancelled by sale during the auction procedure of this case. In such a case, the plaintiff lost his/her ownership (B).

(s) Defendant 00, a title trustee, can not assert ownership in relation to the Defendants

The plaintiff has a claim for damages or a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the Corporation. Therefore, the plaintiff of this case

In order to receive a distribution in each procedure, it may become a creditor entitled to receive a distribution demand by the deadline for receiving a distribution demand. However, there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff constitutes a creditor entitled to receive a distribution demand by the deadline for receiving a distribution demand, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination as to the claim against Defendant 00

The fact that Defendant 00 received dividends of KRW 000 as the surplus of the owner on July 17, 2013 is as seen earlier, and according to the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on May 29, 1996, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on March 20, 1999. On November 6, 2012, the District Court 201Gadan85198 case, which was the Plaintiff’s assistant, the judgment became final and conclusive on November 29, 2012.

According to the above facts, the title trust between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 00 is null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name by bilateral registration title trust. As such, regardless of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the title trustee with respect to real estate under objective title trust, ownership is not transferred from the beginning. Therefore, in relation to the Plaintiff and Defendant 00, the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the fact that Defendant 00 received distributions from the instant real estate as the owner’s surplus from the instant real estate without any legal ground is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as it

However, in full view of each of the statements Nos. 1 and 2 of E-Ma, the defendant Lee 00

0 On May 1, 2013, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, “Defendant 00” shall file an appeal in the above case 201 Ghana85198.

D. We affirm that the owner of the real estate in this case is the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is the plaintiff's withdrawal of appeal.

The agreement to pay the amount of KRW 50 million to the defendant Lee 00. Accordingly, the above judgment became final and conclusive by withdrawing an appeal on May 2, 2013, and the defendant Lee 00 acquired the claim for damages due to the failure to pay the amount of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff or the failure to pay the agreed amount of KRW 50 million.

However, as the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment arrived at the maturity date on July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment and the Defendant 00’s claim for the agreed amount, etc., reached the maturity date and reached the same date set off. The fact that Defendant 00 declared a set-off against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment with the agreed amount, etc. on April 1, 2014 is apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment was extinguished within the scope of 000 won, such as the agreed amount by Defendant 00, which is the set-off date, retroactively from July 17, 2013, which is the set-off date. Accordingly, Defendant 00’s defense has merit, and the Plaintiff’s assertion has no merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

this decision is delivered.