Article 53 (Requirements for Release from Attachment)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

around August 6, 2014, the Defendant 00-0 Ga-ro 00,000, Busan, AA-ro, owned by the Plaintiff.

The attachment disposition taken against the two-story housing 58.22 square meters of 1st floor and 53.98 square meters of 22 square meters of 58.22 square meters of 1st floor is revoked. The attachment disposition taken against the above site and the above-ground buildings shall be revoked.

A preliminary claim (the plaintiff added this part of the claim to the plaintiff as preliminary or exchange claim, but the plaintiff did not withdraw the primary claim and added this part of the claim to the preliminary claim). On July 23, 2015, the disposition rejecting the cancellation of the attachment of the housing of this case rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff on July 23, 201

A. On November 19, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Song on the instant house, and on August 7, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff.

B.On the other hand, the defendant issued a disposition of national tax preservation before the determination of national tax by reason of the fact that Song has omitted comprehensive income tax by false declaration and there was an act of evading national tax in light of the property status, etc., and the registration of the attachment was completed on August 6, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "the attachment of this case").

C. On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Busan Regional Tax Office regarding the instant attachment, but was dismissed on November 27, 2014, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 27, 2015, but was dismissed on May 28, 2015.

D. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to release the instant seizure, but the Defendant respondeded that the said request cannot be accepted on July 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

(a)the part of the principal claim;

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant house from Song on June 20, 2014 and paid the remainder on August 6, 2014 to the actual owner of the instant house on the same day; (b) at the time of the instant seizure, the owner of the instant house was not Song, but the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and was a bona fide purchaser who was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was in arrears with the tax of Song at the time of the instant seizure; and (c) the instant seizure was unilaterally made under the circumstances where the payment was not confirmed as well as the tax amount of Song, and thus, constitutes an abuse of rights; and (d) sought revocation of the instant seizure disposition.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was not a party to seek revocation of the attachment disposition of this case. Thus, in case where the tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of tax collection, the person who has completed the attachment registration after transfer of real estate thereafter has a real and indirect interest in the attachment disposition, and does not have any direct and specific legal interest in the above attachment disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6023, Mar. 31, 192). Thus, there is no reason to distinguish this interpretation from the case of the preservation disposition prior to default of national taxes.

Furthermore, Article 98 of the Income Tax Act stipulates the date of acquisition of assets in principle as the date of liquidation when calculating gains from transfer of assets. Article 20 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act stipulates that the date of acquisition of assets is the date of acquisition of the balance under the contract in the case of acquisition by onerous succession. However, this does not mean that the legal effect of acquisition by the date of settlement of the price or the date of the balance payment takes place, but it is merely the legal fiction of the

In the case of this case, the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the housing of this case after the seizure of this case is as seen earlier. Thus, the part of the main claim among the lawsuit of this case is illegal as raised by a person who has no standing to be a party without further examining, and the defendant's defense pointing this out

(b)the preliminary claims;

The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant housing, filed an application for cancellation of attachment with the Defendant on the ground that the requirements for cancellation of attachment under Articles 24(5) and 53 of the National Tax Collection Act have been satisfied, and sought revocation of the above rejection disposition on the ground that the Defendant rendered the rejection disposition.

According to Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where an administrative litigation is instituted against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts, a request for evaluation or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes must be filed within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition is known (where a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt of the notice of disposition). Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that the National Tax Collection Act as one of the tax-related Acts is one of the procedures for disposition on default, and the National Tax Collection Act provides for the cancellation and seizure as a procedure for disposition on default under Articles 24(1), 53, and 54 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, a person who is dissatisfied with a disposition on default of national taxes under the National Tax Collection

In the instant case, the Defendant’s reply that the Plaintiff could not accept the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of attachment on July 23, 2015 is the same as seen earlier (the reply appears to have reached the Plaintiff on July 27, 2015), and the Plaintiff’s request for change of the purport of the claim seeking revocation of the refusal and the cause of the claim on November 25, 2015 is apparent in the record. As such, the Plaintiff was aware of the said refusal at least on November 25, 2015, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not file a request for examination or a request for adjudication pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes is apparent in the record. Accordingly, the part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed without going through lawful pre-trial proceedings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.