The plaintiff is not the owner of the real estate of this case, and there is no right to seek cancellation of the attachment registration against the defendant.

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff has no right to seek cancellation of the seizure registration itself against the Defendant in the state that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant real estate.

Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016dab205 Registration for cancellation of seizure

○ ○

Korea

April 27, 2016

June 1, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant completed on July 17, 2009 by the District Court, etc. No. 200, received on July 17, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, and implemented registration procedures for cancellation of the registration of seizure on the ground

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 20, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on April 20, 2009 with respect to the instant real estate owned by AA on the ground of a pre-sale agreement on April 20, 2009. On the basis of the above provisional registration, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with the receipt ○○○○○ on May 16, 2014 by the district court on the ground of sale as of May 14, 2014.

B. Meanwhile, on July 17, 2009, the Defendant completed the attachment registration under the receipt ○○○○ on the instant real estate based on AA’s default obligation.

C. Meanwhile, on June 2, 2014, the Defendant filed an objection against the notification of the object of ex officio cancellation of the registration of seizure by the competent district court, etc., and accordingly, the Defendant’s seizure registration is not revoked until now.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Although the registration of seizure by the defendant was completed after the provisional registration of the plaintiff, the defendant raised an objection on the grounds that the statutory date of national tax claims is earlier than the date on which the provisional registration was completed, and thus, the plaintiff was not ex officio until now. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought cancellation of the registration of seizure against the defendant, who had made a provisional registration prior to

3. Determination

According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the registration of transfer of ownership was made based on sale in the name of BB on July 4, 2014 for the real estate of this case at present. According to this, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff had any right to seek cancellation of the registration of seizure itself against the Defendant under the status of not the owner of the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the issue.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.