압류처분 이후 명의신탁자에게 지분이전등기가 되었다하더라도 압류처분은 유효함[국승]
Even if the transfer of shares was made to the title truster after the attachment disposition, the attachment disposition is valid.
If the registration of co-ownership in the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership of the real estate subject to attachment was made through the title trust, it shall be deemed that the truster owns the ownership in the inside and outside of the country, and the co-ownership of the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership belongs to the trustee, and as long as the country externally seizes the property to which the co-ownership belongs to the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership, the attachment disposition shall be valid, and even if the transfer registration has been completed to the title truster
Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act
2012da 8074 Seizure and cancellation of registration
KimA
Korea
October 4, 2012
November 8, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The defendant shall implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of seizure completed on December 5, 2005 pursuant to the receipt of No. 65175, for the plaintiff with respect to the size of 526 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si Obri Eup 000 to the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff completed the attachment registration that was registered as co-owners, including KimD and JeonE, on a co-ownership of approximately 117 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) in Pyeongtaek-si, Suwon-Eup’s OO 000 square meters and approximately 117 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”), but the E did not pay a national tax of KRW 00,000, and the Defendant completed the attachment registration that was made by the Defendant as the right holder on December 5, 2005, based on the attachment disposition as of December 1, 2005, which was issued on December 5, 2005 by Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court No. 65175, Dec. 5, 2005, which was received on December 65, 2005.
나. 김DD은 전EE를 비롯한 이 사건 분할 전 0000 토지의 공유자들을 상대로 하 여 수원지방법원 수원지방법원 평택지원 2006가단23478호로 상호명의신탁해지를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기청구소송을 제기하여 그 결과에 따라 2008.12.19. 위 토지를 평택시 팽성읍 OO리 0000 대 526㎡(이하 '이 사건 분할 후 0000 토지'라고 한다)，같은 리 207-7 대 237㎡，같은 리 000 대 354㎡ 등으로 분할한 후，2008.12.31. 이 사건 분할 후 0000 토지 중 김DD의 공유지분을 제외한 나머지 공유자들 전원의 공유지분에 관하여 상호명의신탁해지를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 경료받았다.
C. The KimD completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land of 000 land after the instant division to the Plaintiff on April 11, 201, which was received on April 11, 201 from the Suwon District Court Suwon District Court, No. 19512.
[Based on Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3 evidence 1, 2, 5 evidence 5, and 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
The co-ownership shares of the co-owners in Pyeongtaek-si Oba 207 to 1084 were acquired, and the co-ownership shares of the co-owners in Pyeongtaek-si 200 to 365 to 100 to 41 to 400 to 41 to 400 to , and the land before the division of this case was in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship between the co-owners, including E., including E., on December 7, 1987. On December 7, 1987, E had already been in a mutually owned title trust relationship with the above co-owners as to 170 to 171 to flba-Eup Oba-si 200 to flba-si 207, and the co-ownership shares of the co-ownership of the co-ownership of the pre-division 00 to 600 to 600 to 70 to 70 to 700 to e-division.
3. Determination
The issue of whether the property is owned by the taxpayer should be determined by the validity of the above registration, and if the co-ownership of the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership of the attached real estate is registered through the title trust based on the intention of the truster, the co-ownership of the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership of the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership belongs to the trustee's co-ownership according to the legal principles of the title trust, and if the state externally seizes the property to the truster's co-ownership of the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership, the attachment disposition is valid, and even if the transfer registration is completed to the truster after the attachment disposition, there is no reason to deny the validity of the attachment disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu506, Apr. 24, 1984). Since the above legal principles of the case are 00, and the co-ownership of the above co-ownership of the above co-ownership is valid for 173/1000, and the co-ownership of the above co-ownership is invalid for the previous co-ownership's co-ownership.
4. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.