If a registration is cancelled without any cause, the validity of the real right is not affected, and even before the restoration registration is made, the holder of the cancelled registration is presumed to be a legitimate right holder.

If a registration is cancelled without any ground because the requirements for the validity of a real right arise and the registration is not a requirement for existence, the validity of the real right is not affected, and the registration titleholder cancelled even before the completion of the registration for recovery is presumed to be a legitimate right holder, and such legal principle equally applies to the case where the registration for cancellation of the registration for provisional seizure is invalid

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 grouped 205244 Demurrer against distribution

AAA (AAA) Specialized Company

1. The Incheon Metropolitan CityCC 2. Korea;

3. BBB National Sports Promotion Foundation;

October 10, 2013

October 24, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"In relation to the case of auction for real estate rent as set forth in the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on March 28, 2012, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be corrected to the amount of dividends to the plaintiff, the amount of dividends to the defendant Kocheon-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "DefendantCC"), the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant corporation"), the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea, the amount of dividends to the defendant BB National Sports Promotion Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant corporation"), the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant corporation"), the amount of dividends to the defendant BBB National Sports Promotion Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant corporation"), as the amount of dividends," and the reasons therefor.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Cancellation of registration of provisional seizure, establishment of a right to collateral security;

(1) On November 5, 2001, Defendant 2: (a) obtained a provisional attachment decision of 201Kahap1901 (hereinafter “instant apartment”); (b) on November 10, 201, the provisional attachment decision of 201, which was issued on November 10, 2006, 206 U.S. 206, 35784, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 206, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 206, 200, 206, 30, 200, 20, 200, 200, 30, 200, 30, 20, 200, 30, 206, 30, 206, 200.

B. Progress of the relevant case

(1) On December 28, 2009, Defendant Corporation filed a lawsuit against the new bank and the largestF (hereinafter referred to as the "new bank, etc.") for acceptance of the procedure for cancellation and recovery of the registration of the provisional seizure company by the Incheon District Court 2009Gahap22835," and (2) on January 11, 2011, the above court rendered the judgment of the new bank, etc. that the provisional seizure of this case should be cancelled on the ground that the provisional seizure of this case became final and conclusive on January 11, 2011, not immediately terminate its validity pursuant to the main sentence of Article 615(3) of the Act, but it shall be deemed that it suffers from its validity when the separate permission of the court on the disposal of the apartment of this case, which is the property subject to disposal, was decided to authorize the cancellation of the provisional seizure of this case immediately on the ground that it was decided to authorize the cancellation of the registration of the provisional seizure of this case.

(3) The new bank, etc. appealed to the Seoul High Court regarding the above judgment, but the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on August 24, 2011, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 15, 2011.

(4) Notwithstanding the above judgment, Defendant Corporation did not register the restoration of the registration of the instant provisional seizure company whose cancellation was registered.

(c) Progress the auction procedure;

(1) On August 12, 201, 201, after the closing of argument in the appellate court of the instant case, the new bank applied for a real estate auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) on the apartment of the instant case by the Incheon District Court around 201Mo49082, based on its own collateral security right.” (2) A new bank transferred its claim on its own collateral security right to the Plaintiff around January 2012, where the auction of the instant case was in progress, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the applicant creditor on January 20, 2012 in the instant auction procedure.

(3) On March 28, 2012, on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) in which the DefendantCC, the holder of the right to deliver the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution, and the Defendant, the holder of the right to issue the second priority, OOOOO, the Defendant Corporation, the holder of the right to issue the provisional attachment, and the Plaintiff, the applicant creditor, distribute the amount to the Plaintiff in proportion to the amount of OOOOO.” (4) The Plaintiff was present on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and stated an objection against the Defendant Corporation, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the instant objection to the distribution on April 4, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4-7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The registration may be asserted against a third party other than the party at the time of registration. The defendant Corporation did not register the restoration of the registration of the provisional seizure company of this case, the cancellation of which was registered.

(2) Therefore, Defendant Corporation cannot receive dividends as a provisional attachment authority in the instant auction procedure, and it is also unreasonable to distribute dividends to DefendantCC and the Republic of Korea based on such premise. Therefore, the instant distribution schedule should be competition as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Relevant legal principles

(1) In a case where a cause for cancellation registration becomes null and void because the registration was cancelled without the intention of the person entitled to registration, the third party interested in the registration is obligated to give consent necessary for the procedure for recovery registration of the person entitled to registration without asking his/her good faith and bad faith, and thus, the third party, who completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage after the registration was cancelled unlawfully, is obligated to give consent as a third party interested in the registration in the procedure for recovery registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526, Sept. 30, 197). Such a legal principle equally applies to cases where the registration of the provisional attachment company is cancelled without the intention of the person entitled

(2) The validity of a real right is not affected if a registration is cancelled without any reason because the requirements for the validity of a real right take place, and the registered titleholder of a registry cancelled even before the completion of the registration of recovery are presumed to be a legitimate right holder. As such, the registered titleholder of a registry cancelled even before the completion of the registration of recovery is presumed to be a legitimate right holder. Therefore, the mortgagee, who was not paid the amount equivalent to the secured debt on the date of distribution in the auction procedure for the relevant real estate, may be present on the date of distribution, raise an objection, raise an objection, and obtain relief by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. Even if the distribution schedule became final and conclusive because the date of distribution is not present on the date of family affairs distribution, the execution of distribution pursuant to the finalized distribution schedule does not confirm the rights under the substantive law, and thus, a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the person who was actually distributed at the above auction procedure may be filed within the limit of the dividend amount if the registration of creation of a new mortgage was not cancelled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da59678).

C. Determination

(1) According to the above facts and relevant legal principles, the cancellation registration of the registration of the provisional attachment company of this case shall be null and void without any legal grounds. If so, the plaintiff, who is the successor of the new bank, who is a third party interested in the registration, is a person obligated to accept the procedure for recovery registration of the defendant Corporation without asking his good faith and bad faith, and thus, the defendant Corporation still has the right as a provisional attachment holder notwithstanding the above cancellation registration in relation to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff did not receive any distribution in the auction procedure of this case, the plaintiff may file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution or file a lawsuit of return of unjust enrichment.

(2) Furthermore, according to the above facts, the defendant Corporation filed a lawsuit against the new bank and received a final judgment in favor of the new bank, and the plaintiff constitutes a successor subsequent to the closure of pleadings by the new bank, and thus the judgment in favor of the new bank becomes effective against the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be asserted against this Opinion (see Article 218 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act).

(3) Ultimately, the plaintiff's above assertion against the defendant Corporation is without merit based on the premise that the cancellation registration of the registration of the provisional seizure company of this case is not null and void, and it is not reasonable to assume that the defendantCC and the above assertion against the defendant corporation cannot receive dividends from the auction procedure of this case as the provisional seizure owner.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.