체납자에게 명의신탁된 부동산이라 하더라도 그 부동산에 대한 압류처분은 유효함[국승]
Even if the real estate held in title by the delinquent taxpayer is held in title, the attachment disposition on such real estate shall be valid.
If the property subject to attachment is real estate, the issue of whether the property belongs to the taxpayer's ownership shall be determined by the validity of registration. Even if the registration of ownership transfer in the delinquent taxpayer's name concerning the real estate subject to attachment was made through title trust, such ownership shall be deemed to have been externally reverted to the delinquent taxpayer according to the legal principles of title trust.
2012Guhap41226 Nullification of a seizure disposition
AAAA (Supplementary clans) clans Association
Head of Seocho Tax Office
April 30, 2013
May 10, 2013
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On March 23, 2012, the Defendant confirms that the attachment disposition against the shares of KoreaB among each real estate listed in the separate sheet is null and void.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 8, 194 in the name of BB in the name of Korea-B on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).
B. When the gift tax imposed on the Korea-BB on November 1, 201, was in arrears, the Defendant seized the shares in the Korea-BB (hereinafter referred to as “BB real estate”) among the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), and the attachment registration accordingly was completed on March 23, 2012.
Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, described in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including family evidence able to do) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff, a clan, was title trusted to BB, which is the final source of the Plaintiff’s real estate in the name of oneB. The instant disposition taken in the course of collecting the national tax under the substance over form principle, is not deemed to be owned by BB, but deemed to be owned by the title truster, the actual owner, i.e., the Plaintiff., the title truster, the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff’s property, which is not the property of Korea BB, the taxpayer, shall be deemed to be null
B. Determination
As the Plaintiff asserted, even if the Plaintiff, a clanB’s real estate under the name of BB, was effectively trusted to BB, the issue of whether the property subject to seizure falls under the taxpayer’s ownership should be determined by the validity of registration. Even if the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the delinquent in arrears, which is subject to seizure, was made through the title trust, the ownership should be deemed to have been externally reverted to the delinquent in accordance with the legal principles of the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu506, Apr. 24, 1984; 82Nu61, Jul. 10, 1984). As long as the Defendant externally attached BB real estate under the name of BB, which is owned by the delinquent in arrears, to the extent that the property belongs to BB, the disposition of this case is valid even after the instant real estate is farmland, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the title trust relationship between the trustee and the trustee is still different from the trust property’s title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 164).
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.