The procedure for registration of cancellation can not be implemented again for the registration of seizure already cancelled.

If the registration of seizure of real estate has already been cancelled due to the completion of compulsory auction, the request to implement the cancellation registration procedure for the registration of seizure is without merit.

Article 45 (Procedures for Seizing Real Estate, etc.)

2014da 48178 Registration of Seizure or Cancellation of Real Estate

1.A

1.B,CC 2. Korea

August 12, 2015

September 2, 2015

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

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

The Seoul Eastern District Court CC (CC), completed the receipt of 36299 on May 22, 2009), completed on April 7, 2010 by the same registry office, completed on April 7, 2010, and completed on November 28, 2011 by the receipt of 74437.

As to the Plaintiff’s real estate listed in attached list Nos. 2, Defendant BB, the Seoul East East District Court CC registry office, completed as of October 18, 2010, and the Defendant Republic of Korea completed as of September 6, 2010 as of September 6, 2010, followed the procedure for cancellation registration of each seizure registration completed as of September 48987 of the same registry office.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter in sequence 1 and 2 of this case) and the real estate owned by 00-00 FFFC 00, SeoulCC-dong, and 00-000, which is represented by the Plaintiff, is exempted from taxes, such as acquisition tax and registration tax, by a religious organization for non-profit purposes. However, the Defendants imposed tax on each of the real estate of this case, and completed each attachment registration stated in the purport of the claim due to tax delinquency, and all of them should be revoked in its grounds for invalidation.

2. Determination

Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, since each of the instant real estate is not owned by the Plaintiff, but owned by the EE church, there is no right to seek cancellation of the registration of seizure as a claim for removal of interference based on ownership (the Plaintiff does not have the right to seek cancellation of the registration of seizure, even when considering the case where the correction of the indication of the party to the EE Association is permitted in the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants imposed tax on the instant real estate 1. As to the instant real estate 2 in Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap10864 and Seoul High Court 2013Nu9283, the judgment dismissing the claim to nullify the invalidation of the seizure disposition, which is a preliminary question, became final and conclusive, on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.