[법인세등부과처분무효확인][공1990.12.1.(885),2322]
Whether the owner who acquired the real estate after the registration of seizure for tax collection has standing to seek confirmation of invalidity of the seizure disposition (negative)
A person who has completed the registration of ownership transfer after the seizure of real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of tax collection is transferred to a person who has completed the registration of ownership transfer after the seizure of the real estate owned by the tax authority shall not have a substantial and indirect interest in the seizure disposition, nor have a direct and specific interest in the law, and therefore,
Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Attorney Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Head of Central Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu1508 delivered on June 27, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In cases where the tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes, the person who acquired the real estate that became the registration of seizure and completed the registration of transfer of ownership after transfer shall have a substantial and indirect interest in the above disposition of seizure and shall not have a direct and specific interest in the law, and thus there is no standing to seek confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu524, Feb. 8, 1985
In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking nullification of the above attachment disposition is unlawful, since the plaintiff falls under a person who acquired a right to the original land share after the registration of participation in the attachment in this case and has a de facto and indirect interest in the attachment disposition in this case, and there is no qualification to seek nullification of the above attachment disposition, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit like the theory
In addition, the grounds of appeal on the premise that the plaintiff is qualified as a party to the lawsuit of this case are matters which are not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)