Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap19823 ( October 12, 2012)

Where a provisional registration is voluntarily cancelled, the registration of seizure shall not be cancelled by means of the registration of cancellation and recovery of the provisional registration.

The term "registration for cancellation of cancellation" means a case where all or part of a registration is cancelled unlawfully, and it has the same effect as that where the cancelled registration was cancelled retroactively at the time of cancellation, and it means a case where cancellation registration or other disposition is invalid as it means a case where cancellation registration or other disposition is cancelled voluntarily.

2012Nu33586 Revocation of attachment disposition

AA

1.Seoulnam Water Market: 2.Tropian Tax Director

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap19823 decided October 12, 2012

July 2, 2013

August 23, 2013

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

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendants added at the trial shall be dismissed.

3. All the costs of appeal and the costs of lawsuit arising from the conjunctive claim shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

"A disposition of cancellation of attachment as of April 25, 201, which was taken around, and against, the plaintiff Jeonnam-do's leisure market (hereinafter "the defendant leisure market"), was cancelled on April 25, 2012, the disposition of cancellation of attachment as of July 3, 2012, which was taken by the head of the defendant Samsungnam-do's office, and the disposition of cancellation of attachment as of April 25, 2012, which was taken by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "head of Gangnam-gu") by the head of the defendant Gangnam-gu (hereinafter "head of the defendant Gangnam-gu")," and "a preliminary measure," and "OO as to the plaintiff's registration as of OOO-gun 150-13 1,194 m2 at the Gwangju District Court of Gwangju-do and the provisional registration as of the preliminary registration as of July 8, 2011."

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation concerning this case is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as stated in the following paragraph

2. Parts to be removed or added;

In Part 3, 17 of the first instance judgment, the "main safety defense" in Part 3, 17 of the first instance court's decision is the "main safety defense concerning the main claim", and the 5th page 1 is the " judgment on the main claim against the defendant leisure market and the head of Gangnam-gu."

In Part 6, the following shall be added to the 6th judgment of the first instance court:

4. Determination as to the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim

With respect to the legitimacy of a preliminary claim ex officio, administrative litigation seeking the performance of the duty to act by an administrative agency against omission under the Administrative Litigation Act is not permissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1629, Nov. 10, 1992). The preliminary claim seeking consent to the procedure for the restoration registration of the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer cancelled against the Defendants is not a claim for the performance of the duty to act against the Defendants, which are the administrative agency, and is not a "related claim lawsuit" under Article 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Accordingly, the lawsuit on the preliminary claim in this case is unlawful.

In the first instance court's decision, the first 4th "4" in the first 7th 5th .

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim against the defendant Samsung Tax Office is unlawful and dismissed, and all of the other defendants' main claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is copied, and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendants added at the trial of the court of first instance is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.