Whether the attachment of a tax office is invalid where the original acquisitor of real estate exists and the registration of transfer of ownership of a registered titleholder is proved to be null and void;

Where the original acquisitor of ownership of real estate exists separately and the registration of transfer of ownership of a registered titleholder is proved to be null and void due to the existence of another person, seizure shall become null and void and shall have a duty to accept cancellation of registration

Article 5 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Gohap 19845 Removal Registration Cancellation

0000 Stock Company

Korea

00 Technology Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "0 technology investment") among the buildings in this case

[1] Of each real estate listed in paragraph (1)(A), (2), (4), (5), (7), (8), (10) through (20), (22) through (24), (26) through (48), (50), and (51), it completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with respect to one-half portion of each real estate in accordance with the Ansan District Court Decision No. 65988, Jun. 11, 2008.

D. Relevant judgments

1) The Plaintiff: 00, Kim 00 on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1) Each real estate described in the above paragraphs 21, 25, and 49 was completed in the name of 00, 000, 000 and each ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of 00, 00, 000 after the registration of ownership preservation was completed. The Plaintiff waived its claim on June 11, 2014.

B filed a lawsuit against B seeking cancellation of registration of ownership preservation.

on July 9, 2007, the Suwon District Court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff acquired each of the above real estate at its original condition, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the Seoul High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 8, 201, respectively.

Recognizing that real estate was acquired at the original time, the judgment was rendered that the Plaintiff shall comply with the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership completed on December 5, 2007 with respect to each of the 1/2 shares of the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto, and the appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on February 27, 2014 (Supreme Court Decision 201Da3832), and the said judgment became final and conclusive (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da3832).

2) The above High Court judgment on the Plaintiff’s ownership of each of the above real estate for the following reasons.

The recognition was recognized.

A) Original acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership of each of the above real estate

The Plaintiff received a building permit from 00:00 p.m. on or around December 2002, and newly built each of the above real estate from around June 2003. Although the Plaintiff discontinued the construction work around October 2005, it is reasonable to deem that the part of each of the above real estate was an independent building as an independent building, since the structural frame, such as columns, roof, and main walls, was completed up to 13th floor above each real estate at the time of the suspension of the construction work. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff acquired each of the above real estate from the original owner of the real estate, and the subsequent leaps0 et al. received each of the above real estate and completed the remainder of the construction work (14,15 floors and appurtenant construction work, etc.), the part completed by leap, etc. conform to the existing building that the Plaintiff acquired at its original owner.

B) Rejection of the claim of leap00, Kim00

around July 26, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed to waive all of the Plaintiff’s rights to each of the above real estate in the event that the Plaintiff is unable to perform a loan agreement after receiving a loan of KRW 1.5 billion from 00,000,000 as the construction price, and the Plaintiff breached the above loan agreement by concluding a contract with the OO industry development company (hereinafter “OOO industry development company”). As such, the Plaintiff violated the above loan agreement by concluding a contract with the OO industry development company (hereinafter “OOO industry development company”), 00 and Ma00 (le0 employees) acquired the Plaintiff’s rights to each of the above real estate.

However, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of a loan agreement with the OO industry is prior to the conclusion of the said loan agreement with the Plaintiff, and the said contract for the transfer of enforcement rights is subject to the purchase of the site of each of the above real estate by the OO industry. By purchasing the above site in the name of KimO, the said condition was not fulfilled. In addition, according to the loan agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and Ma00, the new construction corporation of each of the above real estate is in charge of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not prohibit the delegation of the said new construction work to a third party. Thus, the Plaintiff did not violate the said loan agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff delegated the said new construction work to the OO industry after the conclusion of the said loan agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that le00 and Ma00 acquired the Plaintiff’s right to each of the above real estate is without merit.

[Ground for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s main defense

A. The assertion

If the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 00 Construction is accepted, the head of the competent tax office under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea would release the seizure in proportion to the shares in the name of Defendant 00 Construction. If the seizure is not revoked, the Plaintiff shall file an administrative lawsuit. As such, the father against the Defendant Republic of Korea among the instant lawsuit

B. Determination

Where an application for cancellation of a registration is filed and a third party who has an interest in the registration is required to obtain consent from the third party (Article 57 of the Registration of Real Estate Act), and where a seizure registration has been made with the title holder who has an interest in the registration for cancellation, the real estate owner may, in order to cancel the ownership transfer registration which is null and void, file a claim against the execution creditor who has an interest in the third party, for consent to cancel the registration for invalidation of cause, and where such consent or substitute judgment has been made, the registration officer shall cancel the seizure registration ex officio while cancelling the registration for invalidation of cause upon application (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da41103, Nov. 27, 1998).

Therefore, while seeking the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 00 Construction, the Plaintiff’s interest in seeking the acceptance of the above cancellation is recognized against the Defendant Republic of Korea who seized the shares in the name of Defendant 00. Therefore, the Defendant’s principal safety defense is without merit.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the instant building in its original condition.

Therefore, registration of preservation of ownership in 00 with respect to 1/2 shares of the instant building is without any cause.

registration that has been made is a registration of invalidation. Accordingly, a registration that has been made for an invalid one shall be as described in any of paragraphs (a) through (c).

The registration of ownership transfer in the name of defendant 00 Construction, defendant 00 cc and Korean seizure, etc.

(2) The registration of provisional seizure by Defendant Park Jong-soo, registration of provisional seizure by Defendant Park Jong-soo, and registration of establishment of creation of a neighboring property by Defendant 00 technology

(c)

Therefore, Defendant 00 Construction is the registration of ownership transfer, Defendant 00 technology investment is the right to collateral security.

Defendant 00 who is the person having the right of seizure or provisional seizure, has a duty to cancel each registration of creation;

§ 20. The obligation to declare the intention of acceptance on the registration of the cancellation of any shares seized or provisionally seized.

section 1.

4. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

(a) Defendant 00, Korea;

Defendant 00: (a) The Republic of Korea asserts that as a tax obligee, the instant building was lawfully seized in accordance with the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the National Tax Collection Act, etc.; (b) according to the facts acknowledged earlier, as well as the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, and 2, Defendant 00: (c) and Republic of Korea are recognized to have seized the instant building on the ground of its claim against Defendant 00: (a) the owner of the instant building, not the owner of the instant building; or (d) Defendant 00: (b) the assertion of the Republic of Korea

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that it is a bona fide third party as stipulated in Articles 107 and 110 of the Civil Act. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim on the ground that the registration of preservation of ownership in le00 as the original acquisitor of the instant building is invalid, and there is no room for applying the provisions related to a bona fide third party. Therefore, the above Defendant’s assertion is groundless.

B. Defendant 00 Construction

A) The assertion

00 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as '00') completed the building of this case which was completed only by the 13th floor, and acquired the ownership of the building due to payment in lieu of the construction cost.

In addition, the Plaintiff shall first implement the terms and conditions of the agreement concluded with Park 00, which was delegated with the authority of agreement by 000, and the Plaintiff’s filing a claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to Defendant 00 Construction, which was established to act as an agent in relation to the instant building by 000 without performing the said terms and conditions, contradicts

B) Determination

The fact that the Plaintiff was the original acquisitor of the instant building is as seen earlier.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Park 00 agreed with the Plaintiff on January 6, 201, upon being delegated by defendant 00 Construction and Lee Ma-man, etc.

The Plaintiff, based on the existing agreement, which was mutually resolved by 00 construction (the trade name before Defendant 00 was changed), 00, 000 industrial development, 00, 000, and 000, etc. at the time of original acquisition, was distributed to the instant building under the agreement delegated by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff consented that Nos. 704, 804 and 1501 were sold to Park 00.

shall be excluded from this chapter.

2. Park 00 shall be subject to the agreed investment ratio of the above 1, and shall be decided by the agreement with the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff shall decide upon the original acquisition under agreement with Park 00.

4. Paragraph 1 in a case where the plaintiff disposes of it at will because the rights of interested parties are deleted in the original acquisition.

shall be held liable for the damages of the persons concerned.

According to the above agreement, Defendant 00 Construction & 00 et al. recognized that the plaintiff had original acquisition of each of the buildings of this case, and thereafter, the plaintiff 00 et al. through an agreement.

I seem to set forth specific amounts to be paid. A. 14 to 16, 20

23, 24, and 28 evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that 000 acquired the ownership of the building of this case, contrary to the terms of the above agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, pursuant to the above agreement, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay money to Defendant 00 Construction, etc.

Even if the plaintiff did not exercise its ownership as the original purchaser of the building of this case, the plaintiff must exercise its ownership.

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff should first perform the obligation, the Plaintiff shall perform the above obligation.

It is difficult to claim the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of 00 construction company, or such claim is contrary to the good faith principle.

Therefore, the argument of Defendant 00 Construction is without merit.

C. Defendant 00-technical investment

1) The assertion

The loan contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and le00, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of 00,000 for the instant building in accordance with the said loan contract. After that, Defendant 00 technology investment extended KRW 1.8 billion to 00 on June 11, 2008, and completed the registration of ownership creation for part of the instant building as collateral. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said building by the rescission of the said loan contract between the Plaintiff and le00, Defendant 00 technology investment, a bona fide third party, is not obliged to cancel the registration of ownership creation.

2) Determination

In this regard, the facts recognized earlier, as well as the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

Comprehensively, the Plaintiff was loaned KRW 1.5 billion from around July 26, 2006 to 00 million, but the Plaintiff and 00

between 0 and 0, the content that the registration of preservation of ownership of the building of this case shall be completed in the name of 00.

not enter into a loan agreement. However, if the plaintiff violates the loan agreement, the plaintiff's right.

of this case, le00 only agreed to waive the loan agreement, and even if the plaintiff did not violate the loan agreement, le00

Recognition of the fact that registration of ownership preservation has been completed at will in the name of 00, etc. of the instant building

shall be eligible.

Therefore, according to a loan agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and 00, 00 of the building in this case

After lawful acquisition of ownership, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by rescission of the above loan contract.

As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff acquired the instant building in its original condition, 00 le0 persons.

the registration of ownership preservation and the registration of the establishment of a neighboring security of Defendant 00 technology investment, which is based on such registration, shall be null and void.

Defendant 00-technology investment is registered and therefore, regardless of whether it is a bona fide third party;

Since the duty to cancel the registration of establishment is to be cancelled, the above argument is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are justified, and all of them are accepted.

(2) The decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.

June 11, 2014

July 4, 2014

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant 00:

1) As to the registration of cancellation of registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in attached Form 1. 1. (A) through (10), among the real estate listed in attached Table 1. (A), with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer with respect to 00 shares of 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the attached Table 1. (A) with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer in the name of Suwon District Court, which completed December 5, 2007, attached Table 1. 2) with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1. (A), 5), 6), 9, 11, 13, 17 (17), 18), 26), and 30 (A) with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer in the name of Suwon District Court.

B. Defendant Park Jong-ok expressed his/her intention of acceptance for the registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation in 00 persons, completed December 5, 2007, with respect to the 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in attached Table 1.1. (A) through 20, 22 through 24, 26) through 48, 50), and 51 of each real estate listed in attached Table 1. (A)

C. Defendant 00 Construction Co., Ltd. implements the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 83679 on July 22, 2008, under [Attachment 1] through 20, 22) through 24, 26) through 48, 50), and 51 on one-half share of each real estate listed in attached Table 1. List 1. List 1 through 20, 26 through 48, 50, and 51.

D. Defendant 00 Technology Investment Co., Ltd. implements the procedure for cancellation of registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed on June 11, 2008 pursuant to No. 65988, and completed on June 11, 2008, with respect to 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in attached Table 1, attached Table 1, 2), 5, 7, 8, 10 through 20, 22, 26 through 48, 50, 51, with respect to the 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in attached Table 1.

E. Defendant Republic of Korea expressed his/her intention of acceptance on the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of Defendant 00 Construction Co., Ltd., which was completed under No. 83679 on July 22, 2008 with respect to 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

(a) Preservation registration and transfer registration of ownership;

1) Attached 1. Registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of 00 on December 5, 2007 and 1/2 shares each in the name of leap on December 5, 2007, Kim 00.

2) The registration of ownership transfer was completed from July 22, 200 to Defendant 00 Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 00”) under the name of Suwon District Court No. 83679 on July 22, 2008 with respect to one-half share of the remaining real estate (hereinafter “instant building”) except for each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 21, 25, and 49, listed in the separate sheet No. 1. 1. The ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of Defendant 00 Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 00”).

(b) Registration of seizure or provisional seizure;

1) Defendant 00 City/Do 00 as shown in the attached Table 2. As to part of the building of this case

The seizure registration is completed as to shares in the name of 1/2 and one-half shares in the name of Defendant 00 Construction.

2) Defendant Park 00 completed each of the provisional seizure registrations under No. 82094, which was received on July 17, 2008, with respect to the one-half portion of 1/2 of the instant building, from among the buildings of this case.

3) Defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration of each of the instant building under No. 40275, which was received on April 25, 2011, with respect to one-half shares in the name of Defendant OO Construction among the instant building listed in the attached Table 3.

(c) Registration of creation of neighboring mortgage;