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

Cheong-gu Office

The primary claim is a seizure disposition against the Defendant on December 30, 201, with respect to each one-fourth share of each land listed in the separate sheet, on the part of 1/4 shares in the land listed in the separate sheet, i.e., 68/800 shares owned by the Plaintiff Kim○, 68/800 shares owned by the Plaintiff Lee Jong-hee, ii) shares in the land listed in the separate sheet, i.e., e., 108/80 shares owned by Plaintiff Lee Jong-hee and 28/800 shares owned by Plaintiff Noh Jeong-hee, and 28/800 shares in the land listed in the separate sheet, i.e., 30, 2011.

Preliminary Claim: A list on December 30, 201, set forth by the Defendant on December 30, 201 to Mari-ri, Mari-ri, Mari-jin, and Mari-

Of the attachment disposition with respect to each one-fourth share of each land in the attached Table 1 through 5, 7, and 8, the part of the 68/800 shares owned by the plaintiff Kim ○ and the 68/800 shares owned by the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee, and the part of the 108/800 shares owned by the plaintiff Cho Jong-hee and the 28/800 shares owned by the plaintiff Noh○-Ba from among the land listed in the attached Table 6 of the attached Table, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. Attachment disposition against each land listed in the Defendant’s separate sheet

1) On April 26, 2008, Y○○, the owner of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) entered into a contract to sell the instant land and two parcels, other than the instant land, to KRW 3.2 billion, but the said contract was rescinded on the grounds of the non-payment of the purchase price.

2) On June 21, 2008, due to the death of Ma○○○○ on June 21, 2008, Ma○○○○○, a child of Ma○○○○, inherited each of 1/4 shares of Ma○○’s property, including the instant land, and on February 22, 2008, the Defendant filed an inheritance tax return containing the content that the instant land, out of Ma○○’s inherited property, was calculated as KRW 3.2 billion.

3) On December 7, 2010, the Defendant issued a decision and a notice of correction to pay additional KRW 14,661,423,170 to the instant heir on the ground that the market price of the instant land should be assessed as KRW 25,602,664,00 according to the supplementary assessment methods under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”).

4) The instant inheritors were dissatisfied with the foregoing disposition and filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above disposition with the Suwon District Court after filing an objection and requesting a trial. However, on May 1, 2013, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment dismissing all the above claims (2012Guhap000). The said inheritors appealed, but the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (2013Nu0000) on April 16, 2014, and the said inheritors appealed again, but the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal (2014Du0000) on July 18, 2017, which became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive (Evidence 1 through 3).

5) On the other hand, on December 30, 201, the Defendant issued a seizure disposition regarding one-fourth shares of the instant land on the grounds of unpaid inheritance tax, etc. (hereinafter “instant seizure disposition”) against the instant inheritors, and on the same day, the registration of the seizure disposition was completed (No. 1-8 of the evidence A).

B. The plaintiffs' acquisition of shares in each land of this case

1) On February 14, 1967, Plaintiff Lee ○-hee and Kim Jong-hee, and 3 others (hereinafter “Plaintiff Lee ○-hee and three others”) entered into a contract for purchasing 33-one forest land and 7-one forest land and 33-one forest land and 3-one forest land in ○○○-dong, Seoul (hereinafter “forest and 327,966 square meters”) from Jung-hee and 3 others (hereinafter “the sales contract in this case”). Thereafter, the subject of the sales contract in this case was changed to 1/2 shares of forest and 1/2 shares before the division.

2) On September 24, 1979, the Plaintiff Lee ○-hee and three other parties agreed on September 24, 1979, among the 1/2 shares of forest land before the division, which is the object of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff Lee ○-hee and Lee ○-hee, and Kim ○-sik agreed on the 1/5 shares of forest land before the division. On September 24, 1979, he entered into a settlement agreement between Jeong-hee and Jung-hee with the content that he transfers 1/2 shares of forest land before division to the Plaintiff Lee ○-hee and third parties (hereinafter “the instant settlement agreement”). After division, forest land before division was divided into multiple parcels of land including each land listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “the instant land”).

3) 원고 이○희 외 3인은 '이 사건 임야 중 1/2지분에 관한 소유권이전등기청구권 중 15% 상당 지분을 김○○에게 이전해 주고, 나머지 85% 상당 지분을 원고 이○희 외 3인과 김＊＊이 각 그 1/5지분씩 공유(전체 지분 중 각 17% 상당)하기로 합의하였다. 이후 원고 이○희 외 3인 중 1인인 김○식(1989. 10. 12. 사망)과 그 처(妻) 안○근(2001. 12. 30. 사망)이 사망하였고, 위 김○식과 안○근의 자녀인 원고 김○은이 이 사건 토지에 관한 지분소유권이전등기청구권 중 85/1,000 지분을 상속받았다.

4) On July 14, 2010, Plaintiff Lee Dong-hee and Kim Jong-hee filed a lawsuit against the instant inheritors in Seoul East District Court to the effect that the instant inheritors perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the instant reconciliation agreement with respect to 17/800 shares of each of the instant inheritors among each of the instant lands, but on August 12, 2011, they were sentenced to the above court's dismissal decision (201 Gohap0000) (200), and thereafter, the Seoul High Court's dismissal of appeal (2011Na000) (2000), the Supreme Court's reversal and transmission (201Da000) (200). On September 25, 2013, the Seoul High Court rendered a final and conclusive judgment that accepted the claim of Plaintiff Lee Jong-hee and ○○ Kim (2013Na000). The final and conclusive judgment of 2003Da13000 (Seoul High Court's appeal).

5) On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Jong-hee completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant settlement agreement with respect to the aggregate of 68/800 shares among the shares in the instant land owned by four of the instant inheritors (each of the aforementioned inheritors 17/800 shares x 4), and on March 25, 2014, with respect to each of 54/800 shares (total 108/80 shares) in the land listed in attached Table No. 6 of the attached Table No. 6, respectively, (total 28/800 shares) with respect to each of the remaining 14/80 shares (total 28/800 shares), Plaintiff Nowon-hee completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant shares on March 21, 2014.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1-1-8, Gap evidence 2-1-5, Eul evidence 1

Each entry of evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The part of the shares owned by the plaintiffs among the land of this case (hereinafter "the shares of this case") was disposed of to the plaintiffs on September 24, 1979 by the conclusion of the settlement contract of this case on September 24, 1979, before ○○○ died, and thus, the heir of this case does not include the property inherited from ○○○.

Therefore, the part concerning the instant shares in the seizure disposition of this case is illegal as it is against the property, not inherited property, and is null and void as it is serious and clear. Even if it is not null and void, the above part among the disposition of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

2) Defendant’s assertion

A) Since the Plaintiffs acquired the instant shares after the instant attachment disposition, there is no legal interest in seeking nullification or revocation of the said attachment disposition.

B) (Preliminary) The part of the instant lawsuit, which claimed the revocation of the instant attachment disposition, was filed after the lapse of 90 days from the date of the instant disposition, and thus, the period of filing the lawsuit is excessive and illegal.

(C) (Preliminary) The instant inheritor, at the time of the instant attachment disposition, owned the instant shares, and the instant attachment disposition, which is the preceding disposition, cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, the instant attachment disposition based on the instant attachment disposition is lawful.

B. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

1) Relevant legal principles

According to the first sentence of Article 12 and Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a litigation seeking confirmation of nullity, etc. and a litigation seeking confirmation of validity or revocation thereof may be instituted by a person having legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation thereof. According to each of the above provisions, even a third party who is not the direct counter-party of an administrative disposition has legal interest in seeking revocation of the administrative disposition, standing to sue shall be recognized if there is a legal interest in seeking revocation thereof. However, legal interest here refers to cases where there is a direct and specific interest in the interests protected by the relevant law based on the relevant disposition. However, it does not include cases where there is an indirect, factual, or economic interest, such as an abstract, average, and general interest commonly held by the general public as a result of protecting public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du9736, Jun. 15, 2007; 90Nu10360, Dec. 13, 199

On the other hand, in cases where the tax authority seizes real estate owned by the taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes, the purchaser of the above real estate or the owner of the provisional seizure has a de facto and indirect interest in the above provisional seizure disposition and does not have any direct and specific interest in law, so there is no standing to seek revocation of the seizure disposition (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3241 delivered on February 14, 1997).

2) Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

A) On June 21, 2008, Ma○○ succeeded to 1/4 shares of Ma○○’s inherited property including the instant land, and on December 7, 2010, the Defendant issued the instant disposition of imposing inheritance tax on the instant inheritor on the ground of the unpaid inheritance tax on December 30, 201. On September 24, 1979, ○○○ and Ma○○ entered into the instant compromise contract with the instant heir on September 24, 1979. The Plaintiff ○○ and Ma○○○ filed a lawsuit against the instant heir to file a claim for ownership transfer registration of the instant shares pursuant to the instant reconciliation contract, and received the instant final and conclusive judgment (determined on January 16, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply); the Plaintiff ○○, ○○○, and Ma○ Kim Jong-dong completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant shares on the ground of the instant settlement contract, 2014, 25214, 2014).

B) The above facts are as follows: ① The heir was the owner of the instant share at the time of the attachment disposition, and the plaintiff Lee Byung-hee and Kim ○ was merely the obligees entitled to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the said share pursuant to the settlement contract of this case against the above inheritors, and the plaintiff Lee Byung-hee and Kim Kim ○ acquired the ownership of the instant share on March 11, 2014, after the attachment disposition of this case, and the plaintiff Cho Byung-hee and Lee Byung-ok purchased a part of the instant share from the plaintiff Lee Byung-hee and Si-si on March 25, 2014; ② as long as the attachment disposition was conducted by the tax authorities, the legal status of the acquisitor of the instant real estate can not be changed depending on whether the contract was made before the attachment disposition of the relevant real estate; ③ If the real estate was actually disposed of under a sales contract before the commencement of the attachment, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer had the right to file a claim for the attachment registration of the real estate under the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

The Plaintiffs do not have any legal interest in seeking confirmation or revocation of the attachment disposition of this case. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

C) In addition, as long as the heir at the time of the attachment disposition of this case owned the shares in this case, even if the plaintiff Kim ○, etc. had a claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the above heir, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the attachment disposition of this case is unlawful. Furthermore, since the disposition of tax imposition and the disposition of arrears including the attachment of this case has independence as separate administrative disposition, it cannot be said that the disposition of this case is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu383, Sept. 22, 1987), unless the disposition of this case is revoked or the disposition of this case becomes null and void because there is a grave and apparent defect in the disposition of this case. (2) The heir at the time of the attachment disposition of this case filed a lawsuit against the defendant for revocation of the attachment disposition of this case including the entire shares in this case, but it cannot be viewed that the above disposition of this case was unlawful after the final judgment of this case was rendered by the plaintiff 1, 2017.

3. Conclusion

Since all of the instant lawsuits are unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

1. Forest land of 143-133 square meters in Seoul ○○-gu ○○-dong 143,873 square meters;

2. Forest land: 82,255 square meters in Seoul ○○-gu ○○-dong 143-134 square meters;

3. Forest land of 143-135 square meters in Seoul ○○-gu ○○-dong 142,407 square meters;

4. Forest land of 143-136 square meters in Seoul ○○-gu ○○-dong, 10,087 square meters;

5. The forest land of 143-137 square meters in Seoul ○○-gu ○○-dong 148 square meters;

6. Forest land of 143-138 square meters in Seoul ○○-gu ○○-dong 16,542 square meters;

7. The forest land of 143-139 ○○-dong, Seoul ○○-dong, 2,868 square meters.

8. The last day of 143-140 Forest land, 7,053 square meters, ○○-gu, Seoul, ○○-dong.

Relevant statutes

m. Administrative Litigation Act

Article 12 (Standing to Institute)

A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a disposition, etc. may be instituted by a person having a legal interest. The same shall also apply to a person having the legal interest restored by the cancellation of the disposition, etc., even after the effect of the disposition, etc. is extinguished due to the lapse of a period, the execution

Article 35 (Standing to sue in Confirmation Lawsuit, etc.)

A litigation seeking confirmation of nullity, etc. may be instituted by a person having legal interest in seeking confirmation of validity or existence of a disposition, etc.

【National Tax Collection Act

Article 24 (Attachment)

(1) The head of a tax office (including the director of a regional tax office in cases of delinquent taxpayers prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account the period of delinquency and the amount in arrears; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall seize property of taxpayers in

1. Where the taxpayer fails to completely pay national taxes and the additional dues by the designated period after receiving a notice of demand (including a peremptory notice);

2. Where a taxpayer is notified of payment before the payment period under Article 14 (1) and fails to pay in full by the designated period;

(5) The head of a tax office shall immediately release the property from attachment under paragraph (2) in any of the following cases:

1. Where a person notified pursuant to paragraph (4) provides security for tax payment and requests a release of seizure;

2. Where the amount of national taxes to be collected by the seizure is not determined until three months have passed after the date of the seizure.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release from Attachment)

(1) The head of a tax office shall immediately release the attachment in any of the following cases:

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

2. If the justification for the third person's claim on the ownership under Article 50 is deemed reasonable;

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

(2) The head of a tax office may release the attachment of a property partially or wholly in any of the following cases:

1. Where the total amount of delinquent taxes is substantially exceeded due to a change in the price of property after attachment;

2. If the delinquent amount related to the attachment is partially paid or appropriated;

3. If the imposition is partially cancelled;

4. When other seizable properties are provided by the defaulted taxpayer, and the properties are seized.