The original acquisition is recognized due to the circumstances, etc. in which the owner bears the cost of new construction of the building in the event that the registration was completed after the new construction of the building and the land is traded;

The original acquisition of the subsequent owner is recognized in accordance with the circumstances where the latter owner bears the cost of new construction of the building, the details of the notarized document at the time of a sale agreement, etc. in the event that the registration was completed after the new construction of the building.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 5250109 Registration for cancellation of ownership

L**

The Republic of Korea and four others

December 6, 2017

December 20, 2017

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff:

(a) (1) Defendant ChoA, and SBB shall: (a) the transfer of ownership, completed on September 1, 2016, the receipt No. 0000, as of September 1, 2016;

(2) Defendant FF’s transfer of ownership that was completed on August 18, 2016 by the same registry office under the receipt No. 00000;

(3) Defendant Jeong GG’s registration of initial ownership completed on December 7, 2010 by the same registry office No. 0000,

execution of each procedure for cancellation registration;

B. Defendant Republic of Korea andCC have expressed their intent to accept each of the above registrations of cancellation.

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

Cheong-gu Office

It is confirmed that the real estate listed in the judgment and the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") in the above-mentioned judgment and the attached list are owned by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Registration of preservation of ownership of the instant real estate and registration of seizure of each disposition on default;

As to the instant real estate, on December 7, 2010, upon the application by subrogation of the Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction of QG), the registration of preservation of ownership as stated in Paragraph (2) (A) (3) of the Disposition No. 2 in the name of Defendant JungGG was completed. ② On the same day, the registration of seizure of the disposition of arrears by the Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction of QG) was completed under Article 00000, the registration of seizure of the disposition of arrears by the same registry office on April 23, 2000, and the registration of the disposition of arrears by the Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea) was completed on April 23, 2000, respectively.

B. Each transfer of ownership regarding the instant real estate

On August 18, 2016, the registration of transfer of ownership under Paragraph (2) of the Disposition No. 2, which was made for public sale on July 4, 2016, was completed on August 18, 2016, and the registration of transfer of ownership under Paragraph (2) of the Disposition No. 2, which was made for sale on September 1, 2016, was completed on August 31, 2016.

C. Sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Jung-G

1) On August 20, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant JungG to purchase the sales price of 262 m2 m2, 00 m2, 221 m2, 1,798 m2, 1,792 m2, i.e., Rio-13 m2, i., i., Rio-13 m2, 1,778 m2, i.e., Rio-16 m2, 1,940 m2, i., i., e., Rio-4 m26 m2 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid the above sales price to Defendant JungG by September 4, 201.

2) Upon entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and Defendant Jung JongG drafted a letter of official approval for the sale of farmland (Evidence A 3) with the following contents attached thereto.

Details of traded farmland;

Paragraph 1

1. An OCC-16 1,940 square meters prior to the OCC-200 square meters;

2. Commercial Zone- 44 Spot 66 square meters;

Paragraph 2

1. The OCC-12 Guide 1,798 square meters;

2. Dong-13 1,788 square meters prior to Dong-13.

3. Donguri-7 221 square meters;

4. A rice field 262 square meters at a Dong office;

Article 1

1. The seller Jeong GG shall purchase the above six parcels of land * the purchaser * gold Suppression *

(Won 450,000,000) shall be sold

Article 2

1. The seller's regularG is responsible for changing the location of the house and warehouse site-16(s) approved under the existing paragraph 1 and for changing the change in the name of the 57 square meters of the building.

2. The seller shall immediately transfer the ownership to the designated party A (referring to the Plaintiff) after converting the building into the purpose of use at the time of completing the construction of the OO-16-type building in the building approved for construction.

Article 3

1.B (referred to Defendant JungG) shall actively cooperate in the diversion of farmland and new construction of the farmland in paragraph 1 and shall provide all conveniences.

2. The buyer A is responsible for the entire capital gains tax on the land of the building at the time of the principal registration.

Evidence 1-1, 2, A-2-1, 2-2, A-3, A-4-1, 2-2, and

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit on the part of the claim for ownership confirmation

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain a judgment from the defendant to eliminate such apprehension and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 1991). Although a lawsuit for confirmation may be filed against the defendant claiming performance, filing a lawsuit for confirmation does not have a benefit of confirmation because it is not a final solution of a dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

In this case, the Plaintiff, as part of the exercise of the claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership on the premise that he/she had already acquired the instant real estate, sought the cancellation of each registration of preservation of ownership and transfer of ownership in the name of the said Defendants, and with respect to the Defendant, the Republic of Korea, andCC Group, with respect to the registration of preservation of ownership and the cancellation of ownership transfer, on the premise that he/she is the original owner of the instant real estate. Accordingly, the part of the claim for confirmation of ownership in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da85178, Jan. 12

3. Determination as to the request for cancellation registration and for declaration of consent

A. A person who newly constructs a building with his own cost and effort, barring any special circumstance, shall acquire the ownership of the building, regardless of whether the building permit was made in the name of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da19415, Jul. 15, 2005; 90Da15174, Feb. 12, 1991). If the title holder of the registration of ownership preservation of the building does not construct the new building, the presumption of the right to the registration is broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da30734, Jul. 30, 196).

B.1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, as well as Gap evidence 9-1 to 5, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, and Gap evidence 12-1 to 3, and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case by completing its cost and effort after acquiring the real estate of this case, even though it was not equipped with the form and structure that can be seen as a building by social norms, under the sales contract of this case and its subsidiary agreement, or at least under the status of the construction of the building of this case, the plaintiff acquired the real estate of this case in accordance with its own expenses and effort.

① In light of the fact that the above farmland sale and purchase certificate (Evidence No. 3) refers only to the sale price of six parcels of land, and there is no mentioning the sale price of the pertinent real estate or the construction cost, and Defendant Jung GG agreed to actively cooperate in the construction of the Plaintiff’s new building (Article 3(2)), it appears that at the time of the instant sale and purchase contract was prior to the commencement of the construction of the instant real estate.

② According to the photograph (Evidence No. 9-1 through 5) taken by the Plaintiff at the new site of the instant real estate around May 8, 2002, the Plaintiff did not have the minimum columns, roof, and main walls, which are the requirements for deeming the instant real estate as an independent building under social norms, even around May 8, 2002, around nine months from the date of the instant sales contract, and around September 8, 2002.

③ Around 2002. Around 2002. The details of the construction cost, personnel cost, etc. paid to a large number of construction business operators through the Plaintiff’s account in the name of KimP bank account or the credit card of KimPP, which is the Plaintiff’s wife. On the other hand, there is no evidence to find that Defendant JungG incurred new construction costs of the instant real estate.

④ The instant real estate is owned by the highest KK, which is the Plaintiff, even before the date of closing the argument in this case.

2) Furthermore, since the presumption power of registration of ownership preservation as stated in Paragraph (2) A (3) of Paragraph (2) of the order of Paragraph (2) of this Article on the real estate of this case has been broken, it is reasonable to view that the above registration of ownership preservation is a registration of invalidation without any cause. The registration of ownership transfer as stated in Paragraph (2) A of Paragraph (2) of the order in the name of the defendant Lee FF and the registration of ownership transfer as stated in Paragraph (2) A of Paragraph (1) of the order in the name of the defendant Cho FF and SeoB is also an invalid registration without cause. Therefore, the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on ownership as the owner of the building of this case, and the defendant Jung F, EF, ChoA, and SeoB are liable to cancel each registration of ownership transfer as stated in Paragraph (2) A (2) and (2) of this Article, and each of the above registration of ownership preservation is subject to the duty to cancel each of the above third parties' consent as the owner of the building of this case.

4. Conclusion

The part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the remaining claims are justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.