2. A stock company with ethaloids;

2. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff KF real estate trust company are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Second, each disposition of imposition of KRW 709,479,680 in total, including property tax, etc. in 2014, is revoked (the date of each disposition of imposition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 recorded in the list of the attached property, etc. shall be July 10, 2014; and each disposition date recorded in the remaining number of the above list shall be September 10, 2014; "the date of each disposition of imposition listed in the above list shall be September 5, 2014; however, "the date of the disposition specified in the application for modification of the purport of the claim" shall be deemed to be written by mistake; or

A. On or before January 1, 2014, the amended Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act") entered into a real estate trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the trust agreement in this case") with respect to land or buildings (hereinafter referred to as "the trust property in this case") between Dongdong-gu, Dong-dong and Dong-gu, and Dong-gu, A, C, D, and E, and completed the trust registration.

B. The Plaintiff U.S. Ethpppppp (hereinafter “Plaintiff U.S. Ethpppppppppppppppp (hereinafter “C”) is a first beneficiary under the instant trust contract to a company established by the financial restructuring company for the purpose of selling and selling claims, such as loan claims, security rights incidental thereto, and other rights.

C. On July 10, 2014 or September 10, 2014, pursuant to Article 107(1)3 of the amended Act, the Defendant imposed each disposition on the Plaintiff’s non-real estate trust, which is the trustee of the instant trust property, on the attached list, including the property tax.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

In light of the fact that the person liable to pay the property tax on the trust property has not changed from the truster to the trustee for about 20 years after the local tax provision that sets the person liable to pay the property tax on the trust property as the truster was newly established on December 27, 1993, the disposition of this case against the trust of this case by applying Article 107 (1) 3 of the amended Act to the trust property of this case, which was concluded before the amendment was enforced, is contrary to the principle of trust protection.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Determination: (a) Whether the lawsuit against the Plaintiff UBP is legitimate

Administrative litigation has no benefit in filing an administrative litigation against a person who has a direct and specific interest in the law due to the cancellation of the pertinent disposition by an administrative agency and only has a de facto or indirect relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1267, Sept. 23, 2003).

According to the above facts of recognition, the date of Plaintiff U.S. E.P. is limited to a third party who is not the other party to the disposition of imposition of each disposition indicated in the list of the attached property tax, etc., and is not the other party to the trust property of this case (the right to receive preferential payment of the principal and interest, etc. within the scope of the remaining amount obtained by subtracting the costs of disposal of trust affairs, trust fees, etc. from the proceeds from the sale of trust property, and the claims of senior right holders). Even if the above disposition results in disadvantage in reducing the amount equivalent to the property

It is difficult to view it as an infringement of legal interest directly protected by the tax law. Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that there is standing to sue stipulated in Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act on the date of Plaintiff UBP, the lawsuit on Plaintiff UBP is unlawful.

B. Whether the claim for revocation of each tax disposition filed in the sequence 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the separate sheet, such as the property tax, is legitimate, among the lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff-unreal estate trust

The main text of Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that "a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which he becomes aware of the disposition."

If evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are added to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant sent a notice stating the disposition of imposition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on July 10, 2014 to the plaintiff K K K K real estate trust, and the fact that the plaintiff K K K real estate trust received the above disposition of imposition on July 14, 2014 is recognized, and the fact that the plaintiff K K K real estate trust filed the lawsuit in this case on December 12, 2014 after the lapse of 90 days from the delivery date is apparent in the record. Accordingly, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition on the plaintiff K K K K real estate trust, including the attached list Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, including the property tax, is unlawful after the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of imposition on each case").

C. As to the remainder of the claim of the Plaintiff’s non-real estate trust

1) Details, etc. of amendments to the Local Tax Act

The main sentence of Article 107 (1) of the former Act stipulates that "any person who actually owns any property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax," and in the case of any trust property which is excluded from paragraph (1) and registered under the name of the trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the truster shall pay property tax.

In the case of trust property, the person liable for payment of the property tax is defined as the truster, not the truster.

However, the amended Act deleted Article 107(2)5, while the main sentence of Article 107(1) provides that a person who actually owns property as of the property tax base date shall be liable to pay the property tax, and Article 107(3) of the same Act provides, however, that in the case of trust property registered in the name of the trustee pursuant to the Trust Act and registered in the name of the trustee, the trustee shall be deemed the person liable to pay the property tax for each truster.

Meanwhile, the main text of Article 1 of the Addenda of the amended Act provides that "this Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2014, and Article 17 (1) of the Addenda provides that "where a property tax liability becomes effective before this Act enters into force, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 107 (2) 5, the previous provisions shall apply." Article 34 (1) 8 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provides that property tax shall be liable for tax payment on the tax base date, and the property tax assessment basis date shall be June 1 of each year (Article 114 of the amended Act). However, the instant disposition seeking cancellation by the Plaintiff K non-real estate trust is a property tax imposed on June 1, 2014, which is the tax base date, and it cannot be deemed that the tax liability becomes effective before January 1, 2014, which is the date of entry into force of the amended Act, it shall not be applied to the former Act, and it shall not be deemed that it is a trust property concluded before the amendment into force of the Trust Act.

2) Whether the instant disposition violates the principle of trust protection

When enacting or amending an Act, trust of the parties to the order of the former Act is reasonable and reasonable, and the damage of the parties resulting from the enactment or amendment of the Act is extremely achieved by a new legislation.

If the purpose of the public interest to be sought cannot justify the destruction of such a party’s trust, the new legislation can not be permitted under the principle of trust protection. In order to determine the violation of such principle of trust protection, on the one hand, on the other, the public interest purpose to be realized through new legislation should be comprehensively compared and balanced (see Constitutional Court Order 9Hun-Ba55 delivered on April 26, 2001).

The purpose of the amended Act is to improve and supplement the problems that a person liable to pay property tax on trust property has changed from a truster to a trustee is not able to perform the disposition on default, such as the seizure of trust property, due to a change of a person liable to pay property tax on trust property and a person registered. This is to prescribe the matters concerning the imposition and collection of taxes, which are the basis for local financial revenue, and to provide for the basic purpose of the Local Tax Act to ensure the enhancement of financial resources of

On the other hand, the reliance interest infringed upon by the amended Act leads to the burden of tax liability, such as property tax not anticipated at the time of concluding the instant trust contract. However, in light of the fact that the trustee may receive reimbursement from the trust property in the case of expenditure of trust property or expenditure from the trust property under the name of the trustee for the disposal of trust affairs, and that the Trust Act provides that the trustee may receive reimbursement from the trust property or receive reimbursement from the trust property in the event of the trustee’s repair under the name of the trustee for the disposal of trust affairs, there is no risk that the trustee may not recover the expenses incurred in performing trust affairs or the remuneration from the trust property due to the burden of property tax on the trust property. In the case of the amendment of the amended Act, the conflict of interest between the existing legal order and the existing legal order is being created to a certain extent.

It is not so big that damage caused to the trustee such as mountain trust can not be permitted to apply the revised law in accordance with the principle of trust protection.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case imposed on the taxpayer under Article 107 (1) 3 of the amended Act by designating the trustee as the Plaintiff’s real estate trust, which is the trustee, is in violation of the principle of trust protection. Thus, the above assertion of Plaintiff’s non-real estate trust

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition and the lawsuit of Plaintiff UBD No. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 regarding the lawsuit of Plaintiff KB real estate trust, among the lawsuit of Plaintiff KB real estate trust, are unlawful and dismissed. The remaining claim of Plaintiff KB real estate trust regarding the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Suh Jeong-hee

Judges Lee Dong-gu

A person shall be appointed.

Relevant statutes

* The former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014) and Article 107 (Taxpayer)

(1) A person who actually owns property as of the tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax: Provided, That in cases of public property, the share holder shall be deemed the person liable to pay the share (where the share is not indicated, the share shall be deemed equal) with respect to the portion equivalent to the share, and in cases of the owner of a building and appurtenant land of a house, the owner shall be deemed the person liable to pay property tax with respect to the portion calculated in proportion to the standard market price of the building

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following persons as of the tax base date for property tax shall be liable to pay property tax:

5. In cases of trust property registered under the name of trustee pursuant to the Trust Act, the truster (Provided, That in cases of trust property purchased and owned by a regional housing association under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Housing Act or a workplace housing association member in money, the relevant regional housing association or workplace housing association). In such cases, the trustee (in cases of a regional housing association or workplace housing association, a member thereof) shall be deemed a tax manager under Article 135 of

* Local Tax Law Article 107 (Taxpayer)

(1) A person who actually owns property as of the tax base date shall be liable to pay property tax: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the following persons shall be deemed a person liable to pay property tax:

1. In cases of public property: With respect to the portion equivalent to such shares (where no shares are indicated, such shares shall be deemed equal);

2. Where the owners of a housing building and land annexed thereto are different: The owners of the housing calculated tax on the housing, with respect to the portion calculated in proportion to the standard market prices of the building and land annexed thereto under Article 4 (1) and (2).

3. In cases of trust property registered in the name of the trustee under the Trust Act: The trustee with respect to the property classified for each truster. In such cases, a taxpayer for each truster with respect to the property classified for each truster shall be each other liable for tax payment;

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any of the following persons as of the tax base date for property tax shall be liable to pay property tax:

1. If the de facto owner is unknown because the owner on the public register fails to report even though the ownership has been changed due to sale, etc., the owner on the public register;

2. When the inheritance registration of the property for which inheritance has commenced is not performed but the de facto owner is not reported, the principal heir prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior;

3. An owner entered in the public register if he/she fails to report de facto clans registered in the name of an individual, etc.;

4. Where a sales contract for property subject to imposition of property tax is concluded in annual installments with the State, local governments, or local government associations, and the right to use such property is granted for no consideration: The purchaser;

5. Deleted; < by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014>

6. Where certain land is designated as land in recompense for development outlay or reserved land without designating it as land substitution in an urban development project by the replotting method implemented under the Urban Development Act and a replotting plan for improvement projects under the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act (limited to housing redevelopment projects and urban environment rearrangement projects).

(3) Where it is impossible to verify the de facto owner because the reversion of ownership is unclear as of the tax base date of property tax, the relevant user is liable to pay the property tax.

Addenda No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014>

This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2014: Provided, That the amended provisions of Articles 92 (2), 103-3 (4) and 103-20 (2) shall enter into force on January 1, 2017, and the amended provisions of Article 123 shall enter into force on the date three months have elapsed after the date of its promulgation.

Article 17 (Transitional Measures concerning Change in Taxpayer of Property Tax on Trust Property)

(1) Where a property tax liability becomes effective before this Act enters into force, notwithstanding the amended provisions of Article 107 (2) 5, the previous provisions shall apply.

(2) With respect to property tax to be reduced or exempted under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act prior to the enforcement of this Act, the relevant provisions on reduction or exemption shall apply to the trustee under the amended provisions of Article 107 (1) 3 until the expiration of

* Framework Act on Local Taxes

Article 34 (Time of Materialization of Liability for Tax Payment)

(1) A liability to pay local taxes shall accrue at the following times:

8. Property tax: Tax base date;

* Administrative Litigation Act

Article 20 (Period for Filing Lawsuit)

(1) A litigation for revocation shall be instituted within 90 days from the date on which a disposition, etc. is known: Provided, That where the proviso to Article 18 (1) is prescribed, a request for administrative appeal may be made, or an administrative agency has mistakenly notified that a request for administrative appeal may be made, the period when such request for administrative appeal is made shall be counted from

(2) A revocation lawsuit shall not be instituted after the lapse of one year (in cases falling under the proviso to paragraph (1), one year from the date the adjudication is made) from the date the disposition, etc. is made: Provided, That this shall not apply where any justifiable ground

(3) The period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be a peremptory term.