If there is no secured claim, the order of seizure shall be null and void.

In the case of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of a legal act establishing a secured claim with the right to collateral security and a secured claim with the right to collateral security.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Jinbu District Court 2016 Ghana 116299 De-mortgage

○○ et al.

Republic of Korea and one other

December 20, 2016

2017.01.20

1. On the part of the plaintiff Doz.

A. Defendant ○○ performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed on July 11, 2008 by the ○○○ District Court ○○○○○ Registry on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2008.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea has expressed its intention of acceptance for the registration of cancellation as described in paragraph (1)(A);

2. As to the Plaintiff 1, 200

A. As to the real estate listed in the attached Form 2 list, Defendant ○○ shall have jurisdiction over the Ui Government District Court’s Macheon Registry

Implementation of the procedures for registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed No. 30256 of July 11, 2008;

B. Defendant Republic of Korea has expressed its intention of acceptance for the registration of cancellation as described in Section 2-A.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are: (a) between the plaintiffs and the defendant ○○ made confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) there is no dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant ○○; or (c) there is no dispute between the parties or between the parties, and (d) Nos. 1-1 through 5, 2, 3, 4, and 1-1. The whole purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged by taking into

(a) Particulars for the change of ownership;

(1) On December 17, 2002, ○○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the land of this case”) and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2.1.

(2) On September 9, 2004, the Plaintiff ○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate under paragraph (2) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 attached hereto.

(3) On October 29, 2007, the Plaintiff ○○ completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 (the real estate No. 1 and 2 among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2) among the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the land No. 2”).

(4) On January 17, 2008, the head of ○○ completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the real estate No. 3 and 4 (the real estate No. 3 and 4 of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2; hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) listed in the attached Table No. 2 on the ground of the instant land No. 2. 17.

(5) On January 27, 2009, the head of ○○ died, and on April 6, 2009, on the instant land No. 2 and the instant building, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of inheritance in the name of Kim○, ○○, and ○○○○○○, a co-property heir of the deceased head of ○○○○○.

(6) The Plaintiff Jeong-○ filed a lawsuit against Kim○, ○, ○○, and ○○○○, a co-property heir of the network head’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was the co-property heir of the network head’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the lower court rendered a judgment on September 18, 2009 that the Plaintiff Jeong-○, ○○, and ○○○, on October 13, 2008, declared that the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the agreement on October 13, 2008 with respect to the instant land and the instant building was finally final and conclusive on October 30, 209.

(7) On January 11, 2010, the Plaintiff Jeong-○ completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of an agreement on October 13, 2008, respectively, with respect to the instant land No. 2 and the instant building.

(b) Details of establishment of collateral security;

(1) As to the land of this case on July 11, 2008, ○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the basis of the maximum debt amount of KRW 50 million in the future.

(2) On July 11, 2008, with respect to the instant land and the instant building on July 2008, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

C. The Defendant Republic of Korea seized the secured debt of the instant mortgage subject to preservation of the tax claim against Defendant Pap○○, and on September 23, 2015, the registration of seizure was entered by means of additional registration of the establishment registration on the establishment registration of the instant mortgage.

D. The plaintiffs are mother and mother-child.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

(1) The plaintiffs

The plaintiffs intended to construct a building on the ground of the second land of this case, but the second land of this case was designated as an speculation area. Since the plaintiffs living in Seoul could not obtain a building permit, they completed the registration of ownership transfer on the second land of this case in the name of the network head ○○○○○, in order to obtain a building permit under the name of the network head ○○○. The construction of the building of this case by obtaining a building permit under the name of the network head ○○○, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in

In preparation for the seizure, etc. of the instant land No. 2 and the instant building by the other creditors of the deceased heading ○○○, the Plaintiffs completed the establishment registration of the instant land No. 1 and 2 and the instant building in the future of Defendant Yoon○○○○.

The instant right to collateral security was established in a state with no debt owed to Defendant Ma○○ in order to be exempted from compulsory execution by the creditors of the deceased ○○ and the Plaintiff ○○○, and there is no legal act establishing a separate right to collateral security other than the act of establishing the right to collateral security. Thus, the attachment of the Defendant Republic of Korea, which seized the instant right to collateral security and the instant right to collateral security, is also null and void.

(2) Defendant Republic of Korea

The mortgage contract of this case is based on false representation, and since the defendant Republic of Korea is a bona fide third party, the plaintiffs' claims cannot be complied with.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on Defendant Ma○○○

The ○○○ admitted the Plaintiffs’ assertion as above in accordance with Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) Determination as to Defendant Republic of Korea

Since a mortgage is a mortgage established by settling only the maximum amount of the debt to be secured and reserving the determination of the debt in the future (Article 357(1) of the Civil Act), it is established for the purpose of securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future, separate from the act of establishing the mortgage, the burden of proving whether there is a legal act establishing the secured debt at the time of establishment of the mortgage. Meanwhile, in the event a mortgage is seized, the purpose of recording the secured debt by means of additional registration at the time of establishment of the mortgage is to publicly announce the seizure of the secured debt even if the secured debt is seized, the effect of the seizure even in the case of the secured debt which is subordinate to the secured mortgage, and if there is no secured debt at the time of establishment of the mortgage, the order of provisional seizure is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da107408, Apr. 28, 201).

In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the secured debt of the instant collateral security and the juristic act establishing the secured debt of the instant collateral security and the existence of the secured debt of the instant collateral security. Thus, the instant seizure order issued by the Republic of Korea is null and void since there is no act of establishment of the secured debt of the instant collateral security, since there is no act of establishment of the instant secured debt of the instant case. Therefore, the Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion cannot be accepted without examining further as to

C. Sub-committee

Defendant ○○ has a duty to cancel the instant right to collateral security, and Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to express his/her consent to cancel the instant right to collateral security.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.