Whether the national tax on the seizure of the ownership of a site is priority when only the building is awarded at the time of voluntary auction of an aggregate building and the ownership is registered at the time of transfer.

In case where a seller of an aggregate building takes an auction procedure for a section of exclusive ownership without a transfer of ownership or change of a site ownership on the share of a site due to the delay of cadastral adjustment, etc. and a third party obtains a right to use a site under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings as the principal right, the successful bidder can seek against the seller and the buyer for the registration of transfer of ownership on the share of the site through the buyer in order through the buyer.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. As to the share 119.39/6 of 1521, among the 00 ○○○-dong 00 ○○-dong 742-10 large 1521.6 square meters, the Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation shall sell and purchase the shares to Defendant Jeong Jong-do ○○ on August 29, 2001:

B. Defendant Jeong-○ was the cause of sale by voluntary auction on August 25, 2006 to the Plaintiff.

Each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer shall be implemented.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 29, 2001, Defendant Jong-dong, ○○○○○-dong, 742-10, and 1521.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by Defendant Korea Water Resources Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”), and paid the total purchase price.

B. After having sold the instant land in lots, the buyers such as Defendant Jeong-○, etc. newly constructed the '○○○○○-dong 7th floor size' building on the said land, '○○○○-dong 742-10 '○○ shopping2' on the said land, and around March 31, 2003, the registration of the preservation of ownership was made in the name of Nonparty ○, Inc., Ltd., one of the buyers, and on March 31, 2003. Defendant Jeong-○, Inc., the second floor No. 201, 474.96 square meters (the right to share the site corresponding to the above section for exclusive use, is 119.39/6, 1521; hereinafter referred to as "the instant building"), and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the said building on July 10, 203.

C. Meanwhile, in the auction procedure of real estate auction commenced by the court around 2005, 8944 with respect to the building of this case, the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid on August 25, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale by voluntary auction on September 4, 2006, but the registration of ownership transfer for the right to the site has not yet been completed.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The seller of an aggregate building is entitled to seek the registration of transfer of ownership or change of a site ownership to the seller of an aggregate building at the end of the year following cadastral adjustment, and the registration of transfer of ownership to the buyer of the first section of exclusive ownership was completed only after registration of preservation of ownership was made. However, in the case where the auction procedure for the section of exclusive ownership was conducted without registration of transfer of ownership or change of a site ownership to the buyer of exclusive ownership, the successful bidder is entitled to acquire the right to use the site under Article 2 subparagraph 6 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings as the principal right. In such a case, as the effect of acquisition of the right to use the site, the successful bidder may seek against the buyer and the buyer the procedure for transfer of ownership to the buyer or to complete the procedure for transfer of ownership to the buyer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da58611, Sep. 22, 2006). Therefore, the Plaintiff who received the sale of the building in this case can claim the registration of transfer to the seller of ownership against the Defendant 20.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) The defendants asserted that the plaintiff only won the building of this case at the above auction procedure and did not have the share of the land of this case. However, as seen above, the plaintiff acquired the right to use the building of this case, which is the exclusive ownership due to the above auction, and as a result, the plaintiff can seek against the seller and the buyer to complete the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of the share of the site through the buyer, or seek to complete the procedure for the registration of change of ownership against the seller, so the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

(2) As to the right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership of the instant land owned by the Defendant Corporation and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, the Defendant Corporation and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor asserted on December 2, 2005 that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was groundless since the Nonparty Young Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor’s provisional seizure and seizure on October 20, 2006, respectively, respectively. As such, the aforementioned seizure and provisional seizure inevitably result in the separation of section of exclusive ownership and land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da742, Mar. 10, 2006). Thus, the above Defendants’ above claims are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.