1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The Plaintiff et al. asserted that the Plaintiff et al. purchased the instant real estate from C in around 1981, and Defendant Republic of Korea registered the instant seizure on the instant real estate on the ground of C’s tax delinquency, the nominal owner on the registry, and Defendant D’s National Diplomatic Fund, the creditor of C, completed the instant provisional seizure registration on the instant real estate.

Since the registration of seizure and provisional seizure by the Defendants was actually made by seizure or provisional seizure on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff, etc., the Defendants shall cancel the registration of seizure and provisional seizure of this case.

2. Each registration of seizure completed by the Republic of Korea to determine the claim against the Republic of Korea with respect to the real estate of this case is based on the disposition of seizure, and an administrative disposition is the cause of registration

In principle, a lawsuit that contests the validity of an administrative disposition is filed as an administrative litigation.

However, if an administrative disposition is null and void as a matter of course, it cannot take effect as an administrative act from the beginning, and thus, the invalidation of such disposition can always be disputed anywhere. Since the court is not bound to such administrative disposition, it does not necessarily require invalidity in the administrative disposition. Therefore, it is justifiable to seek removal of attachment execution based on the disposition on default, which is void as a matter of course, based on the disposition on default, is justifiable to seek removal of an obstacle to the ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Da81, Nov. 12, 1985). A claim against the Republic of Korea by the Plaintiff, etc. by the Plaintiff, etc. appears to have been sought for the cancellation of each seizure registration on the premise that the seizure disposition by the Plaintiff, etc. is a disposition against the third party’s real estate owned by each

In the event that the property subject to seizure is real estate, whether the property belongs to the taxpayer’s ownership should be determined by the validity of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu61, Jul. 10, 1984).