It is sufficient to dispute with a claim for cancellation of provisional registration prepared by law, rather than to claim invalidity of cause.

In a lawsuit to seek confirmation of nullity of cause due to the degree of exclusion period, it is sufficient to dispute with a lawsuit to claim cancellation of provisional registration prepared by law, rather than to claim invalidation of cause as it is permitted only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the anxiety and danger in the right or legal status.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011 Ghana 356748 Provisional Registration Cancellation

Korea

XX 1 other

March 23, 2012

April 6, 2012

1. The part of the claim for nullification of the cause of provisional registration of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendants shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the provisional right of claim for transfer, which was completed on December 18, 1978 by the 11407 registry office of the Daejeon District Court, with respect to each one-half share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty ChoA.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

It is confirmed that provisional registration based on the ownership transfer claim concluded on December 16, 1978 with respect to 1/2 shares among the real estate listed in the order of Paragraph 2 and the attached list between the Defendants and Nonparty ChoA is invalid upon completion of the exclusion period.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2011, the Plaintiff has a tax claim of KRW 000 against Nonparty A as of September 1, 201.

B. In addition to the real estate stated in the attached list, Nonparty A only owns the amount of 164 square meters (value assessed 000 square meters) in Bocheon-gu, Bocheon-gu, Bocheon-si, and there is no particular property other than it, and thus, the above amount of delinquent taxes exceeds its obligation.

C. On December 16, 1978, the net BB registered the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") as the receipt of No. 11407 on December 18, 1978 on the ground of a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the pre-sale agreement of this case") with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list, and succeeded to one-half shares of each of the Defendants as the heir as of August 17, 1982.

D. The net BB or its successors did not exercise their right to make a pre-sale settlement for a period of 10 years after the reservation of the instant trade.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The part of the claim for confirmation

In addition to seeking cancellation of the provisional registration of this case, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the invalidity of the provisional registration of this case as the Do of exclusion period.

However, the lawsuit of confirmation is permitted only when there is infinite and risk in the rights or legal status, and it is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension and risk. The lawsuit of this case is intended to cancel the provisional registration of this case, and it is sufficient to dispute by the lawsuit of a claim for cancellation of provisional registration, which is a direct remedy procedure, established by law, in order to achieve this purpose.

Therefore, it is unlawful to seek confirmation of invalidity of a cause separate from the claim for cancellation of provisional registration of the instant lawsuit.

B. Part of the claim for cancellation of provisional registration

Unless there are special circumstances, the right of completion of the pre-sale agreement is apparent that the period of exclusion has elapsed since the pre-sale right was expired since the lapse of 10 years from December 16, 1978 as the date of the pre-sale agreement, and as long as the exclusion period of exercise of the right of completion of the pre-sale agreement exceeds the limitation period, the right of completion of the pre-sale agreement is a kind of right to form and exercise the period of exercise between the parties, and if there is no such an agreement, it shall be exercised within 10 years from the date of establishment of the pre-sale agreement, and the right of completion of the pre-sale agreement cannot be interrupted due to the lapse of the limitation period. Thus, as long as the period of exercise of the right of completion of the pre-sale agreement exceeds the limitation period, the provisional registration of this case is invalid registration with the cause of the pre-sale agreement, the Defendants, as a creditor of ChoA, is obliged to perform the procedure of filing a lawsuit for cancellation of the provisional registration of this case by subrogation of the provisional registration.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the provisional registration of this case is valid since the monetary transaction with the MediationA is still not resolved, and thus, the above provisional registration cannot be complied with. However, as long as the right to complete the purchase and sale reservation has ceased to exist with the purpose of the exclusion period, the above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for confirmation among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the part of the claim for cancellation is justified, so it is so decided as per Disposition.