Whether the registration of attachment is succeeded at the time of voluntary auction in the situation where the senior registration of attachment exists;

It cannot be readily concluded that the validity of the above provisional seizure is extinguished solely on the ground that the auction auction was in progress for the real estate for which the previous owner's registration of provisional seizure was made, and it shall be determined whether the execution court conducted the sale procedure on the premise that the purchaser takes over the burden of the above provisional seizure by examining the specific sale procedure.

Article 617-2 subparag. 3 of the former Civil Procedure Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 52,819,00 won with 5% interest per annum from the delivery date of a copy of complaint to the sentencing date, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1.Basics

A half of the shares in relation to ○○○○-gun, Gyeonggi-do ○○○○-gun, Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○-gun, 50.547 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). However, on March 9, 1998, the attachment registration was completed for the reason of delinquency in the name of the Yangyang and the Dongjak-do ○○-gun.

On March 31, 1998, 1998, 9.917/50 of the total of 50,547/50 of the total of 4.958/57/50 of the 50,547 shares, and 40,630/50 of the total of 20,547/50 and 50,547/50 of the 50,547 shares in the name of 50,547/1998, and 3/50,547/30 of the 50,547 shares in the name of 9,917/1998, were transferred to 100,547/50 and 306 shares to 20,547/307 of the 50,547 shares in the name of 27/1998.

In the real estate auction case of the Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's 99ta-do89270, which was conducted with respect to 40,630 shares in the name of 50,647, the title of ○○ was awarded a successful bid and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 7, 2001, and transferred the entire shares to the Plaintiff on January 18, 2003.

Around November 5, 2004, the co-owner of the real estate of this case was served with the land for public auction, which was in his jurisdiction, and around November 19, 2004, the Plaintiff cancelled the public auction by paying KRW 1,069,870 as the sum of November 19, 2004. Around February 7, 2006, the public auction notice was served with Yangyang Tax Office, and the sum of KRW 64,660,000 was paid to the Hanyang Tax Office for the total sum of KRW 64,60,000 on March 15, 2006.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to cancel a public auction, the co-owners of the instant real estate paid a total of KRW 65,729,870 ( KRW 1,069,870 + KRW 64,660,00) in order to cancel a public auction. The Plaintiff shares KRW 52,819,00 ( KRW 65,729,870 KRW X 40,630,547 in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant real estate) in KRW 52,819,00 ( KRW 65,729,870 KRW X 40,630,547 in the name of the Plaintiff). Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to refund the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment or damages for delay.

3. Determination

In cases where the ownership of the object of provisional seizure after senior provisional seizure against the real estate has been transferred to a third party and thereafter a creditor of the third party has made an application for auction, the creditor of provisional seizure may receive dividends from the proceeds of sale of the object of provisional seizure to the extent of the claim amount at the time of decision of provisional seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19986, Jul. 28, 2006). In this case, the registration of provisional seizure for which the previous owner is the debtor may be subject to a request for cancellation of provisional seizure. However, under the premise that the buyer takes over the burden of registration of provisional seizure for which the previous owner is the debtor, the above provisional seizure creditor may be excluded from the distribution procedure and proceeds from the sale procedure on the premise that the buyer takes over the burden of registration of provisional seizure. As such, where the buyer takes over the burden of registration of provisional seizure, the above provisional seizure becomes invalid, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the provisional seizure becomes invalid merely because the previous owner was the auction registration of the real estate with the debtor, and the above provisional seizure procedure should be determined pursuant to 28070.

돌아와 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 갑 1호증의1의 기재, 이ㅢ정부지방법원에 대한 문서 송부촉탁결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 임의경매절차에서 동작세무서와 동안양세무서는 배당을 받을 채권자로 인정되지 아니하여 대방절차에서 배제되었고 또한 집행법원은 경매목적물에 대한 소유권이전등기와 경매절차에 의하여 소멸되는 권리들에 대한 말소등기를 촉탁하면서 동작세무서와 동안양세무서의 압류등기는 말소촉탁대상에 포함시키지 아니한 사실이 인정된다.

Meanwhile, Article 617-2 subparag. 3 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that a right to real estate registered and the validity of which is not extinguished by a successful bid shall be entered in the list of auction objects. However, in light of the situation that the Dongjak-domini and the Domini and the Domini were not paid dividends, and the registration of seizure was not entrusted, the court of execution appears to have entered the registration of senior seizure in the Domini and the Domini in the Domini in the right which is not extinguished by the successful bid when preparing the specifications of auction objects, and that those who wish to participate in the bid would have also decided the bid price in consideration of these circumstances, and that those who wish to participate in the bid still continued to exist the registration of senior seizure seems to have been the general auction practice at the

In addition, 4,958.5/50 of the shares of 1/2 of the real estate in the name of Kim○-si was registered, and the remaining 5,688.5 percent was transferred to Jeong-dae, and the remaining 45,68.5 percent was carried out only for the shares of 50,547 in order of 50,547. If the registration of senior seizure was cancelled in the course of voluntary auction of this case, 4,958.5 percent in order of 50547 in order of 10547 in order of 105.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the execution court continued the registration of senior seizure in the procedure of the voluntary auction in this case and proceed with the auction procedure on the premise that the successful bidder takes over the burden.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.