청구법인 환매특약 등기를 하였다는 사유만으로 이건 압류처분이 부당하거나 위법하다고 인정하기 어려움[각하]
Seocho 2013west 3216
It is difficult to recognize that the attachment disposition is unfair or unlawful solely on the ground that the registration of a special contract for repurchase was made;
Since the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name has been completed due to the repurchase of the instant real estate, and the Defendant’s revocation ex officio of the instant attachment disposition is recognized, the instant attachment disposition and the instant rejection disposition that had already been revoked are unlawful as it has no practical benefit in all cases.
Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act
2013Guhap19011 Revocation, etc. of attachment disposition
ㅇㅇㅇㅇ
ㅇㅇ세무서장
June 25, 2015
September 17, 2015
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
Cheong-gu Office
In electively, the attachment disposition taken by the Defendant on April 1, 2013 against the real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked, or the disposition rejecting the attachment made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 5, 2013 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
가. 원고는 2011. 9. 30. 소외 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ금융투자 주식회사(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)와 별지 목록 기재 부동산(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)에 관한 환매특약부매매계약을 체결하고, 같은 날 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 소외 회사 명의의 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.
B. The Defendant attached the instant real estate on April 1, 2013 on the ground that the Nonparty Company failed to pay KRW 000 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2012 (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).
C. On June 27, 2013, on the ground of the exercise of the right of repurchase on June 14, 2013 against the non-party company, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cancel the instant attachment disposition, but the Defendant rejected the said request on July 5, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff and the non-party company continue legal disputes with respect to the validity of the exercise of the right of repurchase.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-4, Gap evidence 7-1 through 12, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 16, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010).
In full view of the purport of each of the statements in evidence No. 24-1, evidence No. 24-2, evidence No. 25-1, and evidence No. 25-1, and evidence No. 1 through No. 12, as a whole, the registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s ownership was completed on April 13, 2015 on the instant real estate on the grounds of redemption from June 18, 2013, and the Defendant revoked ex officio the attachment disposition of this case on August 25, 2015. Thus, the instant rejection disposition of this case, which had already been revoked, refused to revoke the attachment disposition of this case, became unlawful due to the lack of legal interest.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against each party in light of the circumstances of the case. It is so decided as per Disposition.