[압류처분취소][집37(3)특,469;공1989.12.1.(861),1686]
Whether a person who has a security interest in a provisional registration has a standing to seek revocation of a seizure disposition for tax collection of secured real estate (negative)
In cases where the tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes, a pecuniary claimant for the said taxpayer who has the right to provisional registration for security has a substantial and indirect interest in the above seizure disposition and does not have a direct and specific interest in law, so there is no standing to seek the revocation of the seizure disposition.
Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Head of the Tax Office;
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9123 delivered on February 22, 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, a pecuniary claimant for the taxpayer who has the right to a provisional registration for security on such real estate shall have an indirect interest in the above seizure disposition and shall not have a direct and specific interest in law, so there is no standing to seek the revocation of the seizure disposition.
In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the above seizure disposition is an unlawful lawsuit filed by a person who has no legal interest in claiming the revocation of the seizure disposition, since the plaintiff is merely a person with a provisional registration security right for the real estate at the time of original sale and has a real interest in the defendant's seizure disposition, and there is no direct and specific interest in the validity of the above seizure disposition, and there is no error
Since the principal registration based on provisional registration has been completed in the name of the plaintiff on part of the real estate at the original time, the appeal that the plaintiff has a legal interest in the filing of the lawsuit in this case as an owner is without merit as it attacks the judgment of the court below on the ground that it did not appear in the records of this case.
In addition, the grounds of appeal on the premise that the plaintiff is qualified to be a party to the lawsuit of this case are matters that are not affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, they cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)