Where a dispute is raised as to whether a provisional registration, a registration of seizure based on a disposition to collect delinquent national taxes, or a principal registration based on the provisional registration has been made successively with respect to the same real estate, and the documents supporting that the provisional registration is a provisional registration for security, whether a registry official may ex officio cancel national tax attachment registration by recognizing the provisional registration as a priority preservation provisional registration (negative)

Where a provisional registration has been made to preserve the right to claim a transfer of ownership on the same real estate, a seizure registration based on the disposition of national tax in arrears, and a transfer registration based on the above provisional registration has been made in succession, and there is a substantial dispute between interested parties as to whether the provisional registration is a security provisional registration by submitting explanatory materials as to the fact that it is a provisional registration of security, the registration officer who is outside the formal examination right based on the provisional registration shall not cancel the national tax attachment registration by recognizing the provisional registration as the provisional registration for priority preservation, regardless

Articles 175(1) and 177 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Supreme Court Order 87Ma1270 Dated March 24, 1988 (Gong1988,683) dated February 28, 1989 (Gong1989,513) 89Ma640 Dated November 2, 1989 (Gong190,12)

[Judgment of the court below]

Msan District Court Order 91Ra1 dated October 9, 1991

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the ground of reappeal

1. According to the records, on August 4, 1988, provisional registration for preserving the right to claim for transfer of ownership was made under the name of the Re-Appellant on the ground that the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim for transfer of ownership was made under the name of the Republic of Korea on January 12, 1989, the registration of seizure under the disposition of national tax in arrears was made under the name of the Republic of Korea on October 10, 1990, and the principal registration based on the provisional registration was made under the name of the Re-Appellant on the name of the Republic of Korea on October 10, 1990. The court below acknowledged that the above provisional registration was not made under Article 5 subparagraph 2 and Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act on the ground that the above provisional registration was made for the purpose of securing the right to claim for transfer of ownership, and that the above provisional registration was made under Article 176 of the above Act on October 29, 199 on the ground that the above provisional registration was made for the above provisional registration being made under Article 250 million.

The judgment of the court below as above is just (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 504-2, 3) and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit.

2. As in the instant case, in a case where there is a substantial dispute between interested parties as to whether the provisional registration of this case was a provisional registration from the Republic of Korea, which is the person having the authority to collect the national tax in arrears, by submitting explanatory materials as to the fact that it was a provisional registration for security, and whether it was a provisional registration for security, the registration officer who is not outside the formal examination authority, regardless of the attitude of the person having the authority to register the provisional registration, cannot cancel the national tax seizure registration by recognizing the provisional registration as a provisional registration for priority preservation. Accordingly, even if the re-appellant who made the principal registration based on the provisional registration, without notifying the re-appellant of the cancellation of the national tax seizure registration, was decided not to cancel the national tax seizure registration based

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho