1. The appellant and 56 others (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Lee Dong-ju et al., Counsel for the appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 2005Mo12 dated January 9, 2006

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts (as a result of the record, the following facts can be acknowledged):

A. On February 2, 2001, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of Nonparty 3, one of the appellant on February 2, 2001 with respect to the Guri-si ○○○dong (hereinafter parcel number 1 omitted), (hereinafter parcel number 2 omitted), the two above ground and the 15th floor of the ground, and the 15th floor of the ground. On February 23, 2001, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of the promise to trade on the same day (hereinafter the provisional registration of this case) under the old-ri registry office on February 23, 2001.

B. After that, the provisional disposition registration of Nonparty 1, which was received on April 18, 2001 by the same registry office as the creditor on April 18, 2001, the provisional disposition registration of Nonparty 1, which was made on October 24, 2001 as the provisional disposition registration of Nonparty 1, which was made on October 24, 2001, the seizure registration of which the Republic of Korea was made as the right holder, and the seizure registration of which was made on July 19, 2003 as the right holder, was completed.

C. On the other hand, on July 13, 2004 with regard to ○ Officetel, the separate registration was completed on July 13, 2004, and the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case was completed on the day following the day when the additional registration on the provisional registration of this case, which was based on the transfer of rights under the provisional registration of this case, was completed on the day when the provisional registration of this case was completed on the same day as the day when the provisional registration of this case was completed on March 21, 2005, which was based on No. 8331, which was received on March 21, 2005.

2. Judgment on the appellant’s assertion

As the appellant completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case in the name of the appellant with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 list, regardless of whether the provisional registration of this case is the provisional registration of this case, where the registrar of the old Ri registry made the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case, regardless of whether the provisional registration of this case is the provisional registration of this case, the provisional disposition registration of this case should be completed after the provisional registration of this case, and the decision of the court of the first instance maintaining the provisional registration of this case as the provisional registration of this case as the provisional registration of this case as the security registration of this case, and maintaining the decision of the provisional registration of this case as not to cancel the provisional registration of this case as the provisional registration of this case, and the provisional registration of this case as the right holder of this case was completed before the statutory date of disposition of arrears, and the provisional registration of this case was terminated by the previous registration of tax of global income, value-added tax, stamp, transfer income tax of this case before the provisional registration of this case, property tax of this case or registration of this case.

First of all, according to the above argument, in a case where the principal registration of transfer of ownership was made based on the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim transfer of ownership, the provisional registration completed after the provisional registration, and the registration of the decision to commence auction, etc. after the provisional registration, are inconsistent with the principal registration, and thus, should be cancelled ex officio. However, the purport of the above provision is that the provisional registration is not the provisional registration based on the priority preservation, but the provisional registration for debt security, i.e., the provisional registration for a provisional registration for a debt security, even if the provisional registration is not the provisional registration based on the promise to purchase and sell, it is difficult to deem that the provisional registration should be cancelled ex officio. Thus, the above provisional registration should not be cancelled ex officio when Nonparty 1, etc. submitted explanatory materials as to the fact that the provisional registration of this case is the provisional registration of this case, and there are substantial disputes between interested parties as to whether it is the provisional registration of this case and its validity, and there are considerable grounds for Nonparty 1, etc.'s assertion as to such provisional registration of this case.

Then, according to the above argument, although provisional registration of security or right to claim transfer of ownership is a provisional registration of security, if the provisional registration of security is a provisional registration of security, the provisional registration of seizure by national and local tax claims prior to the expiration of the provisional registration of security, and the registration of seizure by disposition on default of national taxes (relevant tax) imposed on the pertinent property shall not be cancelled ex officio. However, there is a substantial dispute between interested parties as to whether the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration of security and its validity, and the provisional registration of this case is included by a disposition on default of property tax and automobile tax which are the pertinent tax, and it is difficult to conclude that the provisional registration of this case was completed before the statutory date of global income tax, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)