2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff is a clan consisting of lineal descendants of Y, who are 27 years of age of MaA, and MaB is a member of the plaintiff's clan.

B. On July 3, 1986, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in the name of MaB from the Korea Highway Corporation on the name of MaB, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of MaB on March 18, 1988. The MaB had completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on May 19, 2008 to YB on the grounds of sale and purchase by 200-0-0 and 1367m2 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). Meanwhile, on May 19, 2008, the Defendant 200 decided on July 1, 2008 to revoke the said fraudulent act’s transfer income tax claim for 200,000,0000 won against MaB, 2000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000).

D. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant, based on the above final judgment, cancelled the registration of ownership transfer under the name of netCC, which was sold on the instant real estate, and on the same day, seized the instant real estate based on the instant tax claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. Accordingly, on February 10, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff and filed an objection with the head of the competent tax office, but the head of the competent tax office dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on March 10, 2010. The Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 8, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 22, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Private Opinion without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (a) but, after the Plaintiff’s title trust with EB, came to know of the fact that EB arbitrarily transferred the instant real estate to the GUCC; and (b) against EB and EB, EB, EB, EE, and EP, the heir of GUCC, performed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground that the sales contract between EB and EB was the false representation of agreement; and (c) won judgment by filing a lawsuit seeking the implementation of ownership transfer registration procedure due to the termination of title trust against EB; and (d) the judgment becomes final and conclusive prior to the instant disposition. Since Article 187 of the Civil Act does not require the registration of acquisition of real right to the instant real estate, even if the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer based on the above final and conclusive judgment, the instant real estate is externally owned by the Plaintiff at the time of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff; and (c) therefore, the Defendant was unlawful in the disposition of this case.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the KimD, EE, and EF, the heir of the Network JeongCC, by this Court Decision 2009Da12070 on April 22, 2009, on May 21, 2008, on the ground that the sales contract of this case between EB and the Network JeongCC was the one of the false names, to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made in the name of the Network JeongCC on the ground that the sales contract was the one of the false names, and against EB, to seek the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration made in the name of the Network Jeong. The above court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 11, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 22, 2009.

B) However, the Plaintiff still did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff based on the above final judgment, and the real estate in this case is currently owned by the owner on the register as the Defendant cancelled the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the netCC on February 1, 2010 by the final judgment of this Court No. 2008Da42746, Feb. 1, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Review of relevant legal principles

Even if the tax authority seizes the property owned by a third party through the disposition on default against a taxpayer, the disposition does not lose the ownership of the property by the third party. Thus, the disposition on the property owned by a third party, which is not a delinquent taxpayer, cannot be legally realized regardless of whether the defect is objectively obvious, and thus the disposition cannot be legally realized (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12117, Apr. 27, 1993). However, if the property subject to the seizure is real estate, whether the property belongs to the taxpayer's ownership should be determined by the validity of registration. Even if the registration on transfer of ownership in the name of the delinquent taxpayer in the real estate subject to the seizure was made under a title trust, the ownership should be deemed externally attributed to the delinquent taxpayer in accordance with the legal principles on title trust, so so long as the tax authority seizes the property whose ownership belongs to the delinquent taxpayer externally, the disposition on the seizure shall be valid (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu6161, Jul. 10, 1984).

Furthermore, even if a real estate title trust contract is terminated, the effect of the termination is not retroactive, and it is merely effective in the future, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the ownership of the real estate is naturally returned to the truster. However, since the trustee bears the duty to transfer the registration title to the truster, it is so long as the trustee has ownership in an external relationship with the trustee before transferring the registration title to the truster (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu416, Aug. 24, 1982). In other words, it is reasonable to deem that the attachment disposition on the property for which the title trust contract for the real estate was terminated by the tax authority, but the registration title is yet transferred to the truster. In other words, the attachment disposition on the property for which the ownership of the delinquent taxpayer still belongs is valid.

In addition, the "judgment" under Article 187 of the Civil Act, which provides for the acquisition of real rights to real estate for which the registration is required, refers to the case where the formation of real rights to real estate takes effect by the judgment itself, and the judgment does not include the case where the title truster is entitled to the execution of the procedure for the registration of real estate ownership transfer on the ground of a legal act between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da50025, Jul. 28, 1998). Thus, even if the title truster files a lawsuit against the trustee, such as the claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust against the trustee, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, it is nothing more than ordering the performance of the procedure for the registration of real estate ownership transfer on the ground of legal act between the parties, and it does not constitute a judgment that takes effect by the judgment itself, so it is still the external trustee until the title of registration is transferred in the future, and therefore, the attachment disposition on the property still reverted to the trustee.

3) Determination

However, even if the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against EB seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of title trust, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was finalized before the disposition of this case, unless the plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of EB based on the final judgment, the real estate of this case at the time of the disposition of this case is deemed to have been owned externally. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was lawful, because it was not accompanied by the real estate of this case, which is owned by EB.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.