2. The plaintiff's remaining part of claims except the part of claims as referred to in paragraph (1) is dismissed.

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

2. We affirm that each attachment disposition taken by the Defendant against each real estate listed in the separate sheet on February 22, 2005 is null and void.

A. On July 16, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased the land of nine parcels, including each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) from Kim○, Kim○, and filed an application for ownership transfer registration with the Do Government District Court Dongcheon-cheon Registry on January 12, 2005, along with the owner Kim○, on January 12, 2005.

B. At the time, each register of each of the instant real estate was marked as "Glaverb", and the owner's address was also marked differently from the actual address of Kim○○○, and thus, the name of the Dong, apartment name and the same number are the same, but the number is different), Kim○ applied for the registration of ownership transfer, and the application for the correction of the indication of the registered titleholder was also filed.

C. On January 18, 2005, the registration office of the above registry office rejected each of the above applications on the ground that the application for registration of change of indication of the registered titleholder was not prior to the registration of change of indication of the registered titleholder on the ground that the application for registration of change of registration of change of indication of the registered titleholder was insufficient to vindicate.

D. On March 22, 2005, Kim○-○ filed an objection with the District Court on August 4, 2005 against the rejection of an application for the correction of the indication of the above registered titleholder, and received a decision of correction of the indication of each registered titleholder on August 4, 2005 by the Government District Court Nos. 2005Mo2 and 2005MoMo3, respectively. On the 19th day of the same month, the identification of each owner on each of the instant real estates was corrected to ○○○.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant, on February 22, 2005, who was before the registration for correction of the indication of a registered titleholder was made, requested the Government District Court of Dongcheon District Court to register the seizure of each of the instant real estate owned by Kim ○ on February 22, 2005, which was before the registration for correction of the indication of a registered titleholder was made, and on February 24, 2005, the seizure registration was made on each of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant seizure”), and the Defendant entrusted the registration of seizure pursuant to the disposition on default as above in entrusting the registration of seizure pursuant to the disposition on default as above, entered in the attachment report in the attachment report and the person liable for registration pursuant to the request for registration on the registration of attachment in accordance with the indication

F. Thereafter, on May 16, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on July 16, 2004 with respect to each of the instant real property.

G. Then, on May 22, 2006, the plaintiff filed an application with the defendant for the rescission of each attachment of this case. On June 30, 2006, the defendant issued a rejection disposition as stated in paragraph (1) of the claim that rejected the above application (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of rejection of this case"). The grounds for the rejection disposition of this case are as follows.

- There is no ground for release from seizure, such as transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff for each real estate of this case after the seizure of this case.

H. On July 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the rejection disposition of this case, but was dismissed on or around September 27, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, and Eul 1 evidence (including each number), witness Kim Jong-hee, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for nullification of a seizure disposition

Ex officio, we examine whether the above part of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate.

The plaintiff asserts that each of the seizures of this case is null and void, since the defendant seized each of the real estate of this case in order to preserve the tax claim against Kim ○○, it stated the person liable for registration and the delinquent in the registration request and the attachment report in the false report on the registration request.

However, in cases where the tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the collection of taxes, the person who transferred the real estate registered as a taxpayer and completed the registration of transfer of ownership after being transferred the real estate shall not have a substantial and indirect interest in the above seizure disposition or the public sale disposition under the National Tax Collection Act which is based on the above seizure disposition, but shall not have any direct and specific legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6023, Mar. 31, 1992). Thus, the above claim part in the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case shall not be deemed to be a party standing to seek confirmation of the invalidation or invalidation of the seizure disposition or public sale disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6023, Mar. 31, 1992) and thus, the defendant seized each of the real estate in this case owned by Kim○○○ for the collection of tax claims against Kim○, and even though the registration request and the registration request contain "the resident registration number of Kim○○ in the attachment report and the registration request", it shall not be deemed null and void.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In each of the instant seizure, the delinquent taxpayer is Kim○○, and the registrant of each of the instant real estate seized is the titleholder of the registration of the instant real estate, and in light of the fact that the delinquent taxpayer was Kim○, the registration request and the attachment report, despite being Kim○, were the delinquent taxpayer, were falsely written on the registration request and the attachment report, each of the instant seizure is null and void. Therefore, there exists a reason for cancellation of attachment under Article 53(1)1 of the National Tax Collection

(2) Although the Plaintiff had already filed an application for the registration of transfer of ownership on each of the instant real estate before the Defendant seized each of the instant real estate, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff is in a position to oppose the Defendant as an ownership in light of the following: (a) the Jung-gu District Court has dismissed the Plaintiff’s application; and (b) the Defendant has made a registration of seizure upon the Defendant’s request for the registration of seizure (it is reasonable not to have made the registration of seizure for the same reason as the Plaintiff rejected the application); (c) this is contrary to the principle of equity; and (d) each of the instant seizure is null and void, as seen above, there exists a reason for the rescission of seizure under Article 53(

(3) Despite the existence of the grounds for the cancellation of the seizure of this case, the defendant's rejection disposition of this case against the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of seizure is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s first assertion

As seen earlier, each of the instant seizures cannot be deemed null and void. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant seizures is null and void is rejected.

(2) Judgment on the second assertion by the Plaintiff

The reason for cancellation of seizure under Article 53 (1) 2 of the National Tax Collection Act refers to the case where a third party asserts ownership at the time of seizure, and it shall not include the case where a third party who acquired ownership of the real estate after seizure claims ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15193, Dec. 20, 196). As seen above, the plaintiff acquired each of the real estate of this case on May 16, 2006, later than the time when the defendant seized each of the real estate of this case ( February 24, 2005). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that there is a reason for cancellation of seizure under the above provision is not acceptable (in principle, the plaintiff is in a position to oppose the defendant as ownership. Thus, in the application of the above provision, the plaintiff's assertion that each of the real estate of this case constitutes a third party who already acquired ownership of each of the real estate of this case at the time of seizure, and it cannot be interpreted as "the owner of each of the real estate of this case at the time of seizure."

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, there is no ground for the cancellation of the seizure of this case asserted by the plaintiff, so the defendant's rejection disposition of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of invalidation of the attachment disposition among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

National Tax Collection Act

Article 53 (Requirements for Release of Attachment)

(1) The director of the tax office shall release the attachment in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. If the attachment is no longer needed because of payment, appropriation, suspension of a public auction, cancellation of the imposition, and other reasons;

2. Where the justification for the third person's claim on the ownership under Article 50 is deemed to be reasonable; and

3. If the third person proves that he has obtained a favorable judgment of the court in the lawsuit on the ownership against the defaulted taxpayer.

Table 3

1. Bridge-dong 80,000 square meters of forests and fields 80,003 square meters;

2. Bridge-3, 80-3 square meters of forest land in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu;

3. Simsan-dong 80-4 Forest land of 1,706 square meters in Dong-gu, Dong-gu;

4. Bridge-5, 80-5, 750 square meters of forest land in the Dong-gu, Dong-gu;

5. The forest land of 81 square meters and 430 square meters in the same Dong-gu, Dong-gu;

6. The forest land of 82 square meters,073 square meters, Dong-dong, Dong-gu, Dong-gu;

7. The area shall be 7,633 square meters of forests and fields, 84 square meters, Dong-dong, Dong-gu, Dong-gu.