압류처분 무효 확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 21, 2007, the Plaintiff donated to Nonparty B the share of 1,946/3,085 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun C Forest land of 3,085 square meters, the share of 118/192 square meters in D large scale 192 square meters, and the share of 722/6,631 square meters in E orchard 6,631 square meters, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in B’s name with respect to the instant real estate on the 25th day of the same month.
B. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) imposed gift tax of KRW 48,102,760 on B, who is a donee (the due date for payment: July 31, 201); (b) but did not pay it; (c) designated the Plaintiff, who is a donor, pursuant to Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax Act”); and (d) seized the Plaintiff’s property as indicated below (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).
Attached property 1 on April 12, 2012, the right to deposit claims as shown in Attached Table 1 on June 22, 2012 to deposit claims as stated in Attached Table 2 on June 27, 2012 (based on recognition) 3, 2012, and the purport of all pleadings, as shown in Attached Table 2 on June 22, 2012, and as follows: (a) there is no dispute; (b) evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, and (c) 1, 7, and 8; and
2. Whether the seizure disposition of this case is legitimate
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion first, the Defendant merely provided a payment notice under Article 4(6) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act to the Plaintiff, but did not provide a payment notice under Article 9 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11125, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former National Tax Collection Act”). As such, there was no legitimate taxation, and thus, a joint payment obligation of gift tax did not occur. Therefore, the instant attachment disposition is null and void as its defect is significant and apparent.
Second, in order to jointly and severally pay gift tax to the Plaintiff, it is deemed that the donee has no ability to pay gift tax pursuant to Article 4 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and the disposition on default is made.