[압류해제청구등에관한거부처분취소][집35(3)특,616;공1988.2.1.(817),290]
Where real estate registered as attachment under the National Tax Collection Act is transferred to a third party, the scope of effect of attachment shall be limited.
If a real estate registered as attachment under the National Tax Collection Act has been transferred to a third party and the registration of ownership transfer has been made, the scope of the amount in arrears on which the seizure is effective shall include all the amount in arrears accruing with respect to which the tax liability of the former owner was established until then on the basis of the time the registration of ownership transfer has been
Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act
Supreme Court Decision 85Nu181 Decided October 8, 1985
Plaintiff 1 and two others
Head of Tax Office
Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu12 delivered on February 11, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant was the non-party 1 at the time of residence of the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 was the owner of the non-party 1 at the time of residence of the (name 1 omitted) and the (name 2 omitted), and that the defendant was the non-party 1 and registered the business with the owner of the non-party 1 on January 6, 1980, and that the non-party 1 was the owner of the non-party 1 on the issuance and censorship register of business registration number and the non-party 1 was the owner of the non-party 1 as well as the non-party 2 was the owner of the non-party 1, and therefore, the court below stated that the non-party 2 was the owner of the non-party 1 as the non-party 2 was the owner of the non-party 1.
In addition, if a real estate registered as a seizure under the National Tax Collection Act has been transferred to a third party and the registration of transfer of ownership has been made, the scope of the delinquent amount on which the seizure is effective shall be included in all the delinquent amount arising from the tax amount established by the former owner until then (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu181, Oct. 8, 1985). Thus, the court below's decision that the delinquent amount under paragraphs (3) through (20) of the above Article is justified in light of the above legal principles, since the delinquent amount under the above provision has already been established before the registration of transfer of ownership was made, it is related to the tax amount for which the tax liability had already been established, and thus the attachment requirement of this case has already been satisfied as to the delinquent amount.
In this regard, there is no error in the judgment of the court in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing.
Ultimately, this appeal is dismissed for the reason that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)