압류범위 감축(변경)
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 20, 2013, C, the husband of the Plaintiff, completed registration of initial ownership relating to the instant building.
B. On November 13, 2013, the Defendant recognized that C had committed an act of evading taxes by failing to report and pay transfer income tax on D 3,242 square meters in Ansan-si, while filing an application for reduction or exemption, and issued a seizure disposition on the instant building pursuant to Articles 24(2) and 14(1)7 of the National Tax Collection Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On November 13, 2013, the Defendant entrusted the attachment registration and completed the attachment registration in the name of the Republic of Korea on the instant building.
C. On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer made on November 26, 2013 for three-seven portion of the instant building due to the cancellation of title trust from C.
【Reason for Recognition】 Each description of evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff is seeking a new disposition that changed the scope of seizure against the Defendant to four-seven shares of the instant building on the ground that three-seven shares of the instant building were owned by the Plaintiff, and that the scope of seizure against the Defendant was nominal trust to C. However, such a lawsuit seeking performance of obligations is not allowed under the current Administrative Litigation Act, which is a type of lawsuit seeking to erase the obligation of an administrative agency to take such administrative disposition against the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 192). Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
B. Even if the Plaintiff’s above assertion is deemed to have sought the cancellation of the portion on the third- seventh portion of the building of this case among the dispositions of this case, Articles 55 and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provide that an administrative litigation against illegal or unreasonable disposition, etc., as a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax-related Acts, may not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National