Attachment registration made against a delinquent taxpayer's right to collateral security shall be lawful.

Since there is no evidence to deem the mortgage of this case as invalid because the mortgage of this case was actually established without any secured claim or it was conspired with others, there is no error in the seizure registration made against the debtor's mortgage of this case.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014da5297760 Cancellation of the right to collateral security

The AA and 3 others

Republic of Korea 2 others

May 13, 2015

July 15, 2015

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Main purport of the claim

With respect to the plaintiffs, ○○○○○-dong 263-1 m2,041 m2, Defendant KimA will implement the procedure for each cancellation of the registration of the seizure of the right to collateral security, which was completed on June 9, 2014 by the registration office of the Seoul Central District Court on December 6, 2005, the registration office of the right to collateral security, which was completed on June 9, 2014 by the receipt No. 000000, and Defendant KimB, which was completed on October 16, 2014 by the receipt No. 00000, the registration office of the Seoul Central District Court on December 6, 2005.

Preliminary Claim

Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant KimB expressed their intent to the Plaintiffs regarding the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage on December 6, 2005, No. 00000, which was received on December 6, 2005, on the registration of the Seoul Central District Court’s registration of the establishment of a mortgage on ○○○-dong Seoul ○○-dong 263-1 1,041 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. The agreement of the business partnership between the deceased Kim○ and the defendant KimA

On March 24, 1970, the deceased Kim○ and the defendant KimA made a business partnership agreement with the content that half of the profits were disposed of and divided into half of the profits of the real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "business partnership agreement of this case") after purchasing the real estate by investing half of the funds, and then completing the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased Kim○ or defendant KimA.

(b) Purchasing real estate under a contract for the same business;

1) Pursuant to the instant agreement, the deceased Kim○○ and the defendant KimAA shall hold 1/3 shares in 12 lots of land in ○○-dong, Seoul, and 1041/2562 shares in 12 shares in ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 263-1 and 1,041 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real property”), among the shares in 1041/2562 shares in ○-dong, Seoul, ○-dong, and Seoul, ○-gu.

○○○ 262 Land was purchased.

2) On March 25, 1970, Defendant KimA completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each 1/3 share of 12 parcels of land in ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-gu.

3) On June 18, 1996, the deceased Kim ○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer relating to 1041/2562 shares of the instant real estate and 262 shares of 1041/2562 shares among the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 6, 2005 as to remaining shares of 1521/2562 shares of the instant real estate due to division of common property. Accordingly, the instant real estate was owned solely.

(c) Registration of provisional registration and establishment of a collateral security;

On September 16, 1998, the deceased Kim○○ completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case") with respect to the shares of defendant KimA on 12 parcels of land in ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, Seoul, and the defendant KimA with respect to the real property of this case, the Seoul Central District Court registry No. 00000 on December 6, 2005

The registration of establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of establishment of the right to collateral security") has been completed.

D. Death of the deceased Kim-○ and the inheritance of the plaintiffs

On November 13, 2009, the deceased Kim ○○ died, and the plaintiffs jointly inherited their properties.

E. Auction and cancellation of provisional registration of land under Defendant KimA’s name

1) On May 31, 2010, upon Defendant KimA’s application by Defendant KimA’s creditors Ma○○○, the procedure for compulsory auction was initiated with respect to each of 1/3 shares of 12 parcels in the name of Defendant Kim Dong-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, and the auction was initiated against the third party on May 21, 2012.

2) On April 30, 2010, the above regular registration was cancelled on January 4, 2013 according to the above judgment. The above provisional registration was cancelled on December 4, 2013, pursuant to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da167156, December 18, 2012.

F. Attachment by Defendant Korea and KimB

Defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration of the instant collateral security claims under the Seoul Central District Court’s registration office No. 000000, Jun. 9, 2014; Defendant KimB completed the attachment registration of the instant collateral security claims under the registration office No. 0000, Oct. 16, 2014, based on the Suwon District Court’s Sungnam Branch Branch 2014TT 11989 claims seizure and collection order.

(g) Litigation for settlement of accounts;

The plaintiffs and the defendant separately brought a lawsuit in relation to the settlement following the termination of the contract of this case. On July 3, 2015, the court rendered a judgment that "Defendant KimA shall pay the settlement amount to the plaintiffs on 12 lots of land in ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 262" and "the real estate of this case and the land of ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○-dong," and that the business relationship is terminated upon the death of the deceased Kim○-○, and the above business property belongs to all remaining owners of the defendant KimA, and the defendant KimA has a duty to return the amount equivalent to the net Kim○-○'s share out of the above business property remaining at the time of withdrawal from the account as the heir of the deceased Kim○-○, to the plaintiffs (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da26748)."

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant right to collateral security was established formally in order to prevent the deceased Kim○ from arbitrarily disposing of the instant provisional registration without any secured claim from the beginning. Thus, even if the secured claim of this case aims to secure damages that would be issued by the deceased Kim○○’s arbitrary implementation of the instant provisional registration, the instant right to collateral security has already been cancelled, so long as the said provisional registration had already been cancelled, the instant right to collateral security should also be cancelled. Therefore, the attachment registration of the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant KimB, which is based on the instant right to collateral security, has no effect. Accordingly, the Defendants are obliged to delete the registration of the instant right to collateral security and the instant right to collateral security from the Plaintiffs seeking the cancellation as an exercise of the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on ownership.

B. Defendant KimA, KimB’s assertion

The instant real estate is the property purchased by Defendant KimA and deceased Kim ○○ under the instant trade agreement. However, due to the death of the deceased Kim○○○○○○, the status of the association members naturally left from the association, and since the property belonging to the partnership of the association members is not succeeded to by the heir, the remaining property of the association members remains the sole ownership of the remainder of the association members. Accordingly, the instant real estate is ultimately owned by Defendant KimA. Accordingly, there is no right to seek cancellation of the instant mortgage, etc. against the Plaintiffs.

C. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

In order to secure the tax claim against Defendant KimA, seizure registration duly made pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act does not fall under the requirements for cancellation of seizure prescribed by the Act, and it is impossible to release the seizure unless the registration of the instant right to collateral security falls under the requirements for cancellation of seizure prescribed by the Act. In addition, even if the registration of the instant right to collateral security falls under the false declaration of

3. Determination

The deceased Kim ○ and the defendant Kim Jong-A are two cooperatives, and if one member withdraws from the association, the association’s relationship is terminated, barring any special circumstance, the association is not dissolved, and the property which belongs to the partnership’s aggregate belongs to the sole ownership of the remaining members of the association (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da49693, 49709, Mar. 9, 2006). In the event that the association’s property is real estate, the cause of the change in real rights is the cause of withdrawal from the partnership relationship, and the ownership change becomes effective only when it is registered with the remaining members of the association by the legal act of withdrawal from the partnership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2807, Jan. 27, 201). According to such legal doctrine, the plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant Kim ○-Ga’s right to claim the transfer registration of real estate, which is a combination’s property, is not in violation of the principle of good faith.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.