The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gu Government District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City ex officio).

In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, although the provisional seizure registration was completed on the real estate in this case owned B, the Seoul Bank completed the provisional seizure registration on the real estate in this case on the ground that it was the creditor, and thereafter, requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to execute the provisional sale registration on the real estate in this case. The plaintiff failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer because it was ordered to purchase the real estate in this case by bidding the sale procedure in this case and paid in full, but failed to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition under the Farmland Act. The Korea Asset Management Corporation distributed the remainder after deducting administrative expenses for public sale from the purchase price paid by the plaintiff to the defendants who are the creditor. The Korea Asset Management Corporation acquired the above provisional seizure claim from the Seoul Bank and applied for the compulsory sale by acquiring the title of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer in full at the above auction procedure. In light of Article 578(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, if the purchaser of the real estate loses ownership by compulsory execution on the basis of provisional seizure, the plaintiff can not acquire ownership after the auction sale contract.