Whether the registration of seizure is legitimate

A provisional registration on the building of this case is not for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer, but for preserving the provisional registration on security, so seizure is legitimate.

Article 24 [Attachment] of the National Tax Collection Act

Implementation of the procedure for registration cancellation of the District Court 2014Gahap2690

Section A

Korea, BB

September 30, 2014

October 17, 2014

1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

For the real estate listed in paragraph (1) above, it shall be listed in the separate list 2 through 4, 6, 8, 10 through 16, 22, 24, 27, 34, 49, 53, 58, 59, 62, 64 through 67 to the Appointor 20 listed in the separate list 2 listed in the separate list 2 listed in the separate list 2 listed in the separate list 3 listed in the separate list 2 listed in the 60 listed above concerning real estate, 20 listed in the 60 listed list 2 listed in the separate list 2 listed in the 60 listed list 2 listed in the 60 listed list 2 listed above, 201 listed in the 60 listed list 2 listed in the separate list 3 listed in the 60 listed above list 2 listed in the 2 listed list listed in the 60 listed list for 3 listed real estate, 201 listed in the separate list 2 listed

1. Defendant Republic of Korea: (a) the registration of seizure completed on October 24, 2001 by the District Court, the District Court, the Guluri registry office, the receipt of which was completed by No. 0000;

2. The defendant Kuri-si shall implement each procedure for the cancellation registration of the seizure registration completed on July 19, 2003 by the same registry office.

1. Basic facts

가. BB시 BB동 735-7, 735-8 지상 건물(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다)은 2001. 2. 2. 송CC 명의로 소유권보존등기가 마쳐진 다음, 2001. 2. 23. 정DD, 지FF 명의로 각 1∕2 지분에 관한 소유권이전청구권가등기(이하 '이 사건 가등기'라 한다)가 마쳐졌으며, 그 후 청구취지 제1, 2항 기재 각 압류등기(이하 '이 사건 압류등기'라 한다)가 마쳐졌다.

B. On July 13, 2004, the instant building was registered as an aggregate building. At present, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties own each real estate listed in the attached Table 2 list among the instant buildings as indicated below.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 68, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Summary of the plaintiff (appointed party)'s assertion

The attachment registration of this case completed after the provisional registration of this case for preserving the right to claim transfer of ownership shall lose its effect as the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case has been completed and shall be cancelled.

B. Determination

Whether provisional registration is intended to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer or whether provisional registration is a security registration shall not be determined formally by the type of documents given and received at the time of indication or registration on the registry, but shall be determined by the substance of the transaction and the interpretation of the intent of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da36932, Feb. 11, 1992).

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be known through the overall purport of health stand, records, and pleadings, i.e., (i) the promise to trade the building of this case at KRW 1 billion in the purchase and sale price, (ii) the date of completion of the promise, the time and method of payment, and (iii) the management of collateral security, seizure, provisional seizure, etc. on the building of this case, are not agreed upon; (ii) the branchF worked as an employee of SongCC at the time of the provisional registration of this case; (iii) DoF is confirmed to have leased KRW 303,000,000,000 won among the building of this case; and (iv) the Plaintiff (Appointed) is not reasonable in light of the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer of ownership is not reasonable for securing the provisional registration of this case (the Plaintiff’s claim for transfer of ownership).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.