In the public auction procedure, the owner of a building and site publicly notified that the building will be removed.

In the column for the matters of attention of the public auction notification publicly announced in the procedure for the public auction, there is an expression stating that only the building owned by another person is subject to the public auction, and subsequent bidding is made.

Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act and method of public auction under Article 67 of the National Tax Collection Act; and

2015 Ghana 54690 damages (ar)

KimK

Republic of Korea 1

May 27, 2016

June 24, 2016

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Main claim: Defendant Republic of Korea pays 27, 000 won to the Plaintiff.

Preliminary claim: The execution clause granted on July 23, 2015 by the chief clerk of the JJ District Court 2010Kadan93 XX case against the plaintiff of HH Petroleum Co., Ltd. shall be revoked. Compulsory execution based on the above executory judgment shall be rejected.

1. Basic facts

A. On Nov. 20, 2003, JungA obtained a building permit of 289.08 square meters for automobile-related facilities (maintenance plants) and 101.05 square meters for 2,173 square meters on the Dododo 18X-4 2,173 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seoul-Eup at BB on Nov. 20, 2003, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land under its name on Dec. 2, 2005.

B. On January 10, 2008, JungA obtained a building permit of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") from the building of this case to the south of 8 meters from the building of this case and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on August 2009, with the commencement of construction on January 2, 2008 after obtaining approval for use on February 2, 2008, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership.

C. Jeong completed the registration of ownership transfer to KimE on August 13, 2009 with respect to the instant multi-dong building, and KimE completed the registration of ownership transfer to the FF Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF Construction”) on August 13, 2012.

D. The FF Construction failed to pay value-added taxes for the year 2013, and the GG Tax Office seized the instant building owned by FF Construction on March 2014, and conducted a public sale procedure around February 11, 2015. The Plaintiff was awarded the bid for the instant building in the said public sale procedure on May 26, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2005, Defendant HH Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) received the ownership of the instant land and its ground operation, Nadong building and the instant building from MaAA. On the other hand, JJ District Court 2010Kadan93, filed a lawsuit against Kim E-E to remove the instant building, and was rendered a favorable judgment on November 26, 2010. The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 13, 2011.

F. On July 23, 2015, Defendant Company was granted the inheritance execution clause to Plaintiff based on the above judgment, and its certified copy was served on the Plaintiff on July 29, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence No. 1, Eul's evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff's arguments are organized as follows.

1) The Plaintiff acquired the instant building through the public auction procedure, and the said public auction procedure did not publicly announce that the owner of the instant building and the site would be removed from the building. Since the Plaintiff acquired the said building without gathering it, the State (GGP) that continued the public auction procedure is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the price of the building.

2) If there is no error in the procedure for the public auction of the above building, the grant of succession to the defendant company should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Judgment on the main claim

1) Although the Plaintiff alleged that the instant building was removed and suffered damage, there is no evidence to prove that the said building was removed.

2) Even if the Plaintiff asserts that the purchase of the instant building that was scheduled to be removed in the public sale process was a damage to the high price, the Defendant Republic of Korea is not liable for damages for the following reasons.

In other words, according to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence No. 3, in the item column of the notice of public auction publicly announced in the above public auction procedure, it can be acknowledged that the building site of the building of this case stated that only the building owned by another person after a prior investigation is made, and that the "detailed statement of attached property for public auction" also stated that the building of this case is on the land owned by another person, and that the above public auction is on the condition that the building is sold only after a prior examination is made. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant could sufficiently be aware that even if the owner of the building of this case and the building site of this case are different, the ownership of the building of this case may be lost even if the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in the above public auction procedure. There is no other evidence to prove that there

3) The Plaintiff’s claim on this part is without merit.

C. Determination on the conjunctive claim

1) The Plaintiff seeks the revocation of the succession execution clause granted by this court to the Defendant Company through the instant lawsuit. This lawsuit is understood as a lawsuit of demurrer against the grant of execution clause under Article 45 of the Civil Execution Act (the Plaintiff raised an objection against the grant of execution clause under JJ District Court 2015Kaga2 XX, separate from the instant lawsuit).

2) According to Articles 31 and 45 of the Civil Execution Act, an succeeding execution clause may be granted for the execution of a debtor’s successor either granted for the creditor’s successor indicated in the judgment or indicated in the judgment. In such a case, a lawsuit of demurrer against the granting of an succeeding execution clause may be brought when contesting the executory power of the judgment based on recognized succession. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is such such defect as provided in the Civil Execution Act in the process of obtaining an executory power of the JJ District Court 2010Kadan93 XX against KimE.

3) The Plaintiff’s claim on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.