Attachment effect where the grounds for registration are invalid even though seizure was made against the owner on the register.

Under our legislation, in the event there is no ground for registration or invalidation, such as each of the instant registrations, and the registration that is the external appearance of the right does not conform to the substantive legal relationship, there is no recognition of the public trust in the registration that allows the trusted person to acquire the right as registered.

1. The Defendants, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, expressed their intention of each acceptance on the cancellation registration procedure completed on January 12, 1995 under the Seoul Central District Court Registry No. 2031, in relation to the Plaintiff’s share of 3/36 shares, Lee Young-young, a litigation taking over the second ○○ order among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, with respect to the shares of 2/36 shares in the next ○○ line, which is the litigation taking over the second ○○ order, the next ○○, and the next ○○○, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

[Evidence: Facts without dispute; evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 5, 6, 7, evidence No. 8-1, 2, 3, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, and 4-1, 4-1, 5, 5, 6, 7, 5-1, 8-2, 1, 9-2, and 1-2

A. On January 12, 1995, registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the plaintiff, the non-party 1/4 share in the name of the plaintiff, the non-party 2, the changed rule, and the Kim○ on January 12, 1995.

나. 피고 대한민국은 변○규가 1996년 귀속 종합소득세를 납부하지 않자 체납처분절차를 거쳐 이 사건 거눔ㄹ에 관한 변○규의 지분소유권에 대하여 서울중앙지방법원 동작등기소 2000.11.9. 접수 제40695호로 압류등기를 마쳤다.

C. The defendant Dongjak-gu completed each seizure registration of the non-party's ownership based on the same registry office's receipt of October 27, 2001, No. 49295, May 4, 2004, No. 17508, and No. 34151 on August 1, 2005, where the non-party did not pay the property tax on the building of this case.

D. The Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund received a favorable judgment in the case of claim for reimbursement amount claim No. 2000dada1546078 against Kim ○, and based on the above judgment, received a decision to commence compulsory auction on the ownership, etc. of shares in the building of this case from Kim ○ on May 17, 2005, and completed the relevant decision registration by the same registry office No. 2041 on May 20, 2005.

E. The defendant Credit Guarantee Fund received a provisional attachment decision of which the claim amount is KRW 332,00,000,000 in respect of the ownership of shares in Kim○, and completed the provisional attachment registration by the same registry office No. 24676, Jun. 13, 2005.

F. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Nonparty regarding the instant building on the ground of the trust termination by the Seoul Central District Court 98Gahap3066, as Seoul Central District Court (the Seoul Central District Court 98Gahap3066).

G. On November 4, 2005, the above court rendered a judgment ordering cancellation of each of the grounds that registration of ownership preservation in the name of the non-party was invalid for the reason that the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the non-party was made without any justifiable reason, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, each registration of preservation of ownership made in the name of the non-party should be cancelled after the registration of invalidation of the cause, and the defendants who completed each registration of seizure, etc. based on each of the above preservation registrations which is null and void should express their consent to the cancellation of each of the above preservation registrations unless there are other special circumstances.

B. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

The defendant Republic of Korea has already completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of ○○ Rules and registration of seizure different from that of the building in this case, and the above defendant trusted the owner on the registry as real ownership and completed registration of seizure through due process of disposition of arrears. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case cannot be complied with. However, under our legal system, in the case where there is no ground for registration as in the registration of preservation of ownership in this case or the registration that is the external appearance of the right does not coincide with the substantive legal relationship, if the registration does not coincide with the substantive legal relationship, it does not recognize the public trust of registration that allows the trusted person to acquire the right as registered.

3. Conclusion

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