Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 6-1 through 3.

A. On August 29, 1995, the Plaintiff purchased 2/3 shares of 00,000,000,000,000 ○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 00,000,000 won among 6,532 square meters of the forest owned by ○○○, but the said share was transferred after the completion of a lawsuit, etc. under process with respect to the said share purchase, and instead, on October 4, 1995, ○○ District Court ○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○207,000,000 won as to the said share purchase, and registered the establishment of a mortgage.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 20,694,730 (including additional taxes) in total, including capital gains tax of KRW 2,512,730, and capital gains tax of KRW 14,301,120, which was decided and notified on April 15, 1996 by Park○ on March 16, 195. On April 20, 1998, the Defendant registered the attachment of KRW 0,00 District Court’s ○○○○○ Registry on April 25, 1998 as to the shares of Park○ at the time of the instant woodland.

C. After that, 2/3 of the shares of 0,00 square meters of 0,532 square meters of 0,00 ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○○-dong, 00, 6,532 square meters of forest and 6,000 square meters were modified into real estate listed in the separate sheet following the procedure of division, expropriation, etc. (However, the shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 are 10,531 square meters of 27,531,521.239788, 239788, 3 real estate mentioned in the separate sheet 10,521.23978, 271/27,531, and the shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet 27,61,775 square meters of forest and 27

D. On August 19, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate by means of sale on August 29, 1995, ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office ○○, 6400 received on August 19, 2005.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the attachment disposition of real estate should be conducted based on the real ownership of the real estate in question as a procedure for the disposition on default of national taxes. Thus, the attachment disposition of real estate listed in the defendant's attached list is illegal.

3. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

In cases where a tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes, a purchaser of such real estate or a person who transferred such real estate after the registration of seizure and completed the registration of ownership transfer shall have a real and indirect interest in the above disposition of seizure and shall not have a direct and specific interest in law, and thus is not eligible to seek nullification or revocation of such disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6023, Mar. 31, 199

In addition, capital gains tax is a national tax (Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes), and the National Tax Collection Act is included in the tax law (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act). Thus, administrative litigation against the seizure disposition of this case, which is a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, may not be instituted without a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon (see Articles 5 and 56

However, according to the above facts, the attachment disposition of this case on the real estate of this case was completed before the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on the real estate of this case, and since the plaintiff was not in the status of purchaser of this case at the time the attachment registration was made on the real estate of this case, the plaintiff has a real and indirect interest in the attachment disposition of this case and does not have a direct and specific interest in law, and therefore, it is not a party entitled to seek the

In addition, on August 30, 2005, the plaintiff filed an objection (which appears to have been an application for cancellation of attachment under Article 53 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act) against the defendant on the attachment disposition of this case concerning the real estate of this case, but the defendant dismissed it on September 27, 2005, and accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on November 22, 2005 (the evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 5-1 and No. 2 of the above evidence No. 5-2 of the National Tax Collection Act). The above appeal cannot be deemed as an appeal for cancellation of the attachment disposition of this case, and it is not deemed that the plaintiff filed a request for examination or appeal under the Framework Act on National Taxes and did not go through its decision prior to filing a revocation lawsuit against the attachment disposition of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is deemed to be one mother and is unlawful, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.