공유물분할에 따른 압류 및 근저당권 효력의 말소[국승]
Attachment or cancellation of effect of a partition of co-owned property
In the case of partition of co-owned property on the attached real estate due to the disposition on default, the request for cancellation of attachment shall be made by evidentiary documents, and the illegality and illegality of the disposition on refusal shall be contested by administrative litigation, etc.
Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act: Conditions to cancel attachment
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant rendered a judgment to the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of provisional seizure completed on August 22, 2000 by ○○ District Court ○○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○ Branch ○○○○○○○ Branch ○○○○○ Branch ○○○○○○○○○○ Branch 8349.
1. Basic facts
The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in subparagraphs 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, and there is no counter-proof.
A. From September 14, 191, 1991, ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○-dong 27,264 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land prior to the division”) owned by Nonparty ○○. Since around September 14, 1991, Hu○-do sold the land prior to the division to the Plaintiff, Nonparty ○○, ○○-dong ○○, and ○○○-dong ○○, by specifying the location and number of the land, respectively.
B. After that, on July 20, 2004, the land before the subdivision was divided into 27-1, 27-2, 27-3, and 27-4, etc. under the agreement between the parties, and on July 26, 2004, the registration of subdivision was made under the Plaintiff’s sole name with respect to the land of 27-3, forest land and 844 square meters (hereinafter “land after subdivision”).
C. Meanwhile, as ○○○○○ Office, which belongs to the Defendant, was unable to pay the comprehensive income tax on the portion of land recognized for the year 1997 and year 1998, the seizure disposition was made on August 18, 200 on the portion of land before subdivision and accordingly the seizure registration was made accordingly. However, the above provisional seizure registration was transferred to the land after subdivision.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff is the sole owner of the land after partition, and the defendant asserts that the seizure registration should be cancelled because it is merely a person who has the right to seize the Kim○-○'s shares in the land before partition.
As seen earlier, on August 18, 200 with respect to the land before subdivision, a person who claims the ownership of the real estate seized by a disposition on default shall file an application for the cancellation of attachment with the tax authority upon preparing evidentiary documents pursuant to Article 50 of the National Tax Collection Act. If the tax authority refuses a request for the cancellation of attachment, it is impossible to immediately file a civil lawsuit against the tax authority for the cancellation of the registration itself.
Therefore, the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration of seizure under the name of the defendant is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.