제3자이의
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a motor vehicle lease agreement with A to allow A to use and benefit from the motor vehicle listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) under the terms of the lease fee of KRW 974,30 per month, the agreed period of KRW 60, and the agreed rate of KRW 11.76%, and the title of ownership of the motor vehicle was to be registered in A.
B. Under the above agreement, A completed the registration of ownership of the instant motor vehicle on August 19, 2013, and on the same day, A completed the registration of mortgage creation of KRW 45,00,000 at the bond price in the future of the Plaintiff.
C. On June 25, 2014, the Defendant seized the instant automobile according to the disposition on default, as the Defendant did not pay taxes.
(hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The plaintiff of the lawsuit of this case asserts that " even if the automobile of this case was a lease contract with A and its ownership registration was completed in the future, according to the provisions of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act and the relevant legal principles, the plaintiff owned not only the internal relationship with A but also the external relationship, and thus, it cannot seize the automobile of this case, which is not a property A, due to the imposition of tax against A." and sought confirmation of invalidity of the attachment disposition of this case.
B. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.
If an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition shall be unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). Moreover, even if the party’s objection was not raised as an ex officio, the benefit of a lawsuit ought to be examined ex officio, and if the defect is found to exist, the lawsuit should be dismissed. The court of final appeal as well as the time of
Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2685 delivered on February 23, 1996, etc.