There is a duty to cancel each seizure registration, etc. as seized after each share of land becomes a right to use the site.

The shares of each land were the right to use the site before the seizure, and the plaintiffs acquired the right to use the site that had been the original debtor by purchasing each subparagraph of the apartment of this case among the apartment of this case. Unless there is any evidence to prove the existence of the rules on separate disposal of each share of the land for which the right to use the site has been established, it is reasonable to deem the seizure and the right to use the site of this case to be null and void both after the right to use the site of this case was granted the right to use the site of this case

2012 Gohap5825 Seizure, Cancellation, etc.

New AA 4 other

Republic of Korea 2 other

October 16, 2012

October 30, 2012

1. The plaintiffs' number of persons

A. Defendant Republic of Korea shall have the shares of 78.752/339.1 of the land listed in Schedule 1, the shares of 72.643/312.8 of the land listed in Schedule 2, the shares of 72.643/312 of the land listed in Schedule 2, and the shares of 6.525/28.1 of the re-land listed in Schedule 3, each Seoul East Eastern District Court was completed as 8184 of receipt on October 1, 2009.

B. The defendant Songpa-gu shall, with respect to the share of 106.85/339.1 of the land listed in the attached list No. 1 of the attached list, be the number of the attachment registration completed under No. 93829 of October 4, 2004 at the same registry office.

C. As to the shares of 17.704/312.8 of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 2, and the shares of 1.591/28.1 of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 3] among the land listed in [Attachment List No. 2, Defendant HH shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage completed on March 25, 2004 by the receipt No. 30038 of the annexed

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

The text is as follows (72.613 of the claim No. 1(A) appears to be a clerical error.

1. Basic facts

A. Progress in the construction of the apartment of this case

1) The BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "B Construction") entered into a contract for construction works on each of the instant lands between KimDD et al. and 12, registered as co-owners of each of the instant lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant lands"), and the 12 households owned by the said co-owners and the remaining seven households owned by the said co-owners in lieu of the payment of the construction cost.

2) BB construction commenced around September 5, 2002 the construction of the instant apartment, completed the instant apartment around December 2003, and obtained approval for its use on December 29, 2003, and completed the collective building register on the instant apartment on December 31, 2003.

B. The registration relationship between the apartment of this case and each land of this case

1) On January 26, 2004, the 12 households owned by the above co-owners among the apartment buildings of this case, each of the co-owners was registered under the name of each co-owner on the sectional ownership of each co-owner on January 26, 2004, and on March 12, 2004, the copy of the register of the building of the above 12 households was registered respectively as the land subject to the site ownership, and on the same day, each of the above co-ownership was registered to the effect that the co-ownership with respect to the co-ownership of the 12 households

2) On January 26, 2004, the remaining seven households of the instant apartment were jointly owned by the above KimD and the above KimD and 12 others, and the above registration was corrected to be jointly owned by KimD and 11 others on June 9, 2005. On March 12, 2004, the copy of the register of the building of the said seven households, each of the registrations indicated as the land subject to the site ownership was completed.

3) On March 25, 2004, the above KimD and 11 others, as the representative director of BB Construction, filed for the registration of ownership transfer for the shares of 106.85/339.1 of the land of this case among the land of this case No. 1 and the shares of 98.592/312.8 of the land of this case No. 2, and the shares of 8.854/28.1 of the land of this case No. 3 of this case.

C. Current status of the plaintiffs' ownership of the apartment of this case

1) On October 30, 2009, Plaintiff New A purchased 00 of the instant apartment, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 9, 2009, and on October 30, 2009, NA purchased 19.132/339.1 of the instant land from OO, and purchased 17.648/3128 of the instant land 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the said shares, after purchasing 1.586/28.1 shares among the instant 3 land. Plaintiff New A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1.586/28.3 of the instant apartment on June 13, 2007, and 308/10 of the instant shares from 303 of the instant apartment, and 19.38/160 of the shares from 19.38/197 of the instant land 207, and 2013/197 of the shares from 130.3.18/18/19/1 of the instant shares.3 of the instant portion.

2) On June 5, 2007, the Plaintiff Lee Jae-young completed the respective share transfer registration with respect to 1/13 shares of the instant apartment Nos. 102, and on September 12/13, 2007, and on November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff Lee Jae-young completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 25, 2009 with respect to each of the said shares after purchasing shares of 17.704/312.8 shares among the instant land No. 2, and 1.591/28.1 shares among the instant land No. 3, and purchased shares of 1.591/28.1 shares among the instant land No. 3.

3) On November 27, 2008, Plaintiff NoteG purchased the instant apartment Nos. 202, and November 20, 2009

A. On November 25, 2009, 209 completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above shares by purchasing the shares of 11.894/339.1 of the land No. 1 of this case, the shares of 10.97/312.8 of the land No. 2 of this case, and the shares of 0.984/28.1 of the land No. 3 of this case, corresponding to the above section of exclusive ownership.

4) On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff Kim E-E completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the final judgment on June 5, 2007 with respect to the instant apartment No. 403 on August 3, 2007, and on November 8, 2007, Plaintiff KimE completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant apartment No. 403 on November 8, 2007, pursuant to the said section of exclusive ownership, 11.75/39.1 shares among the instant land No. 1, 10.843/312.8 shares among the instant land No. 2, and purchased 0.973/28.1 shares among the instant land No. 3, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 8,

5) On May 30, 2005, Plaintiff KimF purchased the instant apartment No. 000, completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 9, 2005, and on September 30, 2009, Plaintiff KimF purchased 9.342/339.1 shares in the instant land among the instant land No. 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2009, in accordance with the foregoing section for exclusive use.

D. Registration of seizure by the Defendants and registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage

1) On October 1, 2009, CC did not pay 000 won, including capital gains tax, and completed the attachment registration under the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 81184 with respect to the shares of 78.752/339.1 of the land in this case, shares of 72.63/312.8 of the land in this case, shares of 72.643/312.8 of the land in this case, and shares of 6.525/28.1 of the land in this case in the third land in this case.

2) Defendant Songpa-gu completed attachment, etc. under Article 93829 of the receipt of the same registry office as to the portion of land No. 106.85/339.1 of this case on October 4, 2004.

3) On March 25, 2004, Defendant Choi H completed the registration of creation of a neighboring registry under Article 30038 of the same receipt by the same registry office, with respect to the portion of the land No. 2 in question, 17.704/312.8 shares among the land No. 2 in the instant case, and 1.591/28.1 shares among the land No. 3 in the instant case, with respect to the debtor as a stock company III

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (if available, including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the establishment time of the right to use the site

The right to use the site of an aggregate building refers to the right that a sectional owner has on the site of a building in order to own a section for common use together with a section for exclusive use, and the site of a building refers to the land in accordance with the land regulations and regulations on the building to which a section for exclusive use belongs, as long as that section for exclusive use belongs (see Article 2 subparag. 5 and 6 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings). Meanwhile, in order to establish the right to use the site, an aggregate building must exist on the site, and a sectional owner shall have the right to use the site

The special requirement is unnecessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26145, Jun. 23, 2009). The time when the aggregate building was established, and that is, the time when the divided ownership is established, as a matter of principle, after the whole building was completed and it was registered as a separate building in the building ledger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1345, Sept. 17, 199). However, even if the building was newly constructed and sold as a collective building even before that time, the right to use the site was established for the section for exclusive use. Since the above apartment was newly constructed on September 23, 2009 and BB construction had been completed on September 5, 202, at least 200, the apartment building was constructed on each of the above apartment units and the building site ownership was registered on December 13, 201, and each of the above apartment units was registered on each of the following facts.

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

Article 20 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and Article 20 (2) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings") provides that "the right to use site of a sectional owner shall be subject to the disposition of his section of exclusive ownership," and "the sectional owner cannot dispose of the right to use site separately from his section of exclusive ownership, except as otherwise provided by the regulations." Thus, unless there is any evidence to prove that the regulations on separate disposal exist with respect to each portion of the land of this case, which was established with the right to use site of this case, the right to use site of the apartment of this case, and both the defendant, the Republic of Korea, and Songpa-gu, have attached each share of each of the land of this case after the right to use site of this case was established with the right to use site of this case, and it is reasonable to deem that all of them are invalid, and in the end, the defendants are obligated to cancel each seizure registration or the registration of creation of mortgage.

C. Determination as to the assertion on the good faith of Defendant HH

Defendant HH, as a bona fide third party under Article 20(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, lawfully acquired the right to collateral security with respect to the instant portion of land as a bona fide third party under Article 20(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, refers to a third party under Article 20(3) of the Aggregate Buildings Act, which provides that if the purport of having the right to collateral security is not registered, it shall not be asserted against the third party who acquired the right to collateral security with the intention to obtain the right to collateral security, and, in principle, it refers to a third party who acquired the land which is the object of the right to collateral security without gathering the circumstances in which the owner of the instant portion of the instant aggregate building was the site (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26145 Decided June 23, 2009), and considering that there is no evidence to prove that the above portion of the instant aggregate of the instant two and three parcels of land which are the object at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security, Defendant H’s entire argument as well as each of the instant portion of the instant aggregate land was established.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, Defendant Republic of Korea is obliged to effect the registration of attachment as of October 1, 2009, the registration of attachment completed as of October 1, 2009 No. 85/339.1 of the land No. 7852/339.1 of the instant land, the shares of 72.643/312.8 of the instant land No. 2, and the shares of 6.525/28.1 of the instant land No. 3 of the instant land, and the Defendant Songpa-gu is obliged to effect the registration of attachment completed as of October 4, 2004 as of the shares of 106.85/339.1 of the instant land No. 1, the same registry office completed as of October 4, 2004 as of the shares of 17.704/312.8 of the instant land and the shares of 1.591/28.1 of the instant land No. 3 of the instant land as of March 308, 2004.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.