The Plaintiff may not claim ownership of real estate on the ground of prescriptive acquisition unless it is registered before seizure by Defendant (State).

Even if the tax authority seizes real estate for which the period of extinctive prescription has already expired by the Plaintiff, the tax authority, who was the third party, cannot claim the ownership on the ground of extinctive prescription, unless the Plaintiff had registered the real estate until that time. Even if the registration of ownership transfer was completed after the seizure, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant

Article 245 of the Civil Act

2012 Ghana 14362 Real Estate attachment and cancellation

The two AA

Korea

May 30, 2012

June 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of each seizure registration completed on March 18, 2010 by the Suwon District Court, the Sungsung District Court, the registration office of which was completed on March 18, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. The twoB made each registration of ownership transfer on July 28, 1997 to the Plaintiff, who is his mother, for the purpose of avoiding the payment of taxes to be notified by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) on July 18, 1997 (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”).

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit to revoke the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name and received a favorable judgment on November 11, 1999, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 3, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “former judgment”). On March 12, 2010, the Defendant revoked the registration of transfer of ownership in the instant case and returned the owner to BB by cancelling the registration of transfer of ownership in accordance with the previous judgment of this case, and returned the owner to BB on March 18, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “registration of seizure, etc. in this case”).

C. However, on June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against both BB on July 28, 2007 with the purport that the acquisition by prescription on the register was completed on July 28, 2007, and both BB accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on August 19, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute between the parties, Gapl evidence through Gap2-3, Gap evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff, (1) the defendant, after the expiration of the ten-year statute of limitations after the judgment of this case, had to be completed on March 12, 2010 on March 12, 2010 after the expiration of the ten-year statute of limitations after the judgment of this case, and the registration of cancellation was revoked on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff. Thus, the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet is still the plaintiff, and the defendant filed a seizure registration of this case on each real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 18, 2010, based on national tax credit against two BB, who is not the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the registration of seizure of this case was null and void as it was a disposition on default on other's property, and (2) the plaintiff acquired a complete ownership that was not subject to restrictions on the registration of this case after July 28, 19

(2) On this basis, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as the Defendant completed a provisional disposition registration on each real estate stated in the separate sheet, the extinctive prescription of the claim for cancellation registration under the previous ruling of this case is interrupted at the time of the application for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer of this case, the registration of cancellation is legitimate, and that, in addition, the Plaintiff did not bona fide, unfaith, and openly occupy each real estate listed in the separate sheet, such as the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act by the Defendant against the Defendant, and even if the recognition and recognition of both BB is valid, it is for the Defendant not to pay national taxes against the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be asserted against

B. Determination

(1) The interruption of prescription by the provisional disposition is continued until the execution preservation of provisional disposition is in force (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da11102 delivered on April 25, 2000). According to each of the following items: (a) the case was examined and the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 with respect to each of the real estate indicated in the attachment, the defendant filed a provisional disposition registration based on the provisional disposition decision No. 997120 delivered on April 6, 199 with the Suwon District Court 20809 delivered on April 6, 199 with respect to each of the real estate indicated in the attachment, and the registration of each of the above provisional dispositions was cancelled on March 12, 2010 when the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled, and therefore, the defendant's right to claim for the cancellation of the period has expired by the time limit of 31, 2010.

(2) Whether the defendant can oppose the registration of seizure of this case on the ground that the plaintiff acquired each real estate listed in the separate sheet by prescription

The attachment as a disposition for arrears under the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act shall be subject to taxpayer's property, and where the property is registered, whether it belongs to taxpayer's property shall be determined by the validity of registration. Even if the tax authority had already seized the real property for 20 years by the plaintiff, if the plaintiff did not make the registration until that time, it cannot be asserted against the third party's tax authority as the ground for the prescriptive acquisition, and even if the acquisition of the right by prescription is retroactive to the commencement of possession of the real property after the attachment, its retroactive effect is not acknowledged even in relation to the third party's tax authority as the third party's tax authority, and the so-called prohibition of disposal in the attachment cannot be asserted against the third party's execution creditor as the third party purchaser cannot oppose the execution creditor, and even if the plaintiff did not lawfully submit the registration of ownership transfer from the third party after the attachment, it cannot be asserted that the registration of ownership transfer was void by the plaintiff's lawful acquisition of the above real property before the expiration of the statute of limitations period, as otherwise stated in the separate from the above.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.