Cho High 2013Gu4572 ( December 31, 2013)

In respect of seizure by deeming that there is a separate owner of shares, a third party has no interest in the action to seek the revocation of seizure

Since the seizure of claims is only a relative effect between an execution creditor and a debtor, there is no influence on the legal relationship between a third party debtor, and thus a person who claims that the seized claim belongs to himself/herself as a right belonging to the tax authority regarding the disposition of seizure of claims by the tax authority has no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the seizure disposition.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Guhap20690 Revocation of attachment disposition

Category AA and 2 others

Head of the Tax Office

December 10, 2014

January 21, 2015

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On January 29, 2013, the attachment disposition issued by the Defendant against 5,00 shares in the name of KRE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as KRE), 7,000 shares in OF Co., Ltd. under Plaintiff B’s name (hereinafter referred to as “OF”), and 3,000 shares in the name of CC on January 29, 201.

1. Basic facts

A. EE is a corporation whose business purpose is the automobile parts manufacturing business, etc. at OOOOOOO-Eup OO, and OF is registered as the representative of Plaintiff B as a corporation for the purpose of fishery products processing business, etc. at OOOOOO-O, OO of OO-Eup, and OF is registered as the representative of Plaintiff BB. However, EE and OF actually operated by Plaintiff BB, the father of this BB.

(b) Detailed statement on the state of the fluctuation of stocks, etc. of the KE and EF (Evidence Nos. 6-4 and 8-5 of the evidence No. 6-4);

According to the review, as of December 31, 201, Plaintiff A as of December 31, 201, as of December 31, 201, Plaintiff A as of December 5, 200

The Plaintiff B as of December 31, 2008, as of December 31, 2008, 10,000 shares issued by OF

Among 7,000 shares, the plaintiffCC held the remaining 3,00 shares, respectively, and the plaintiffs also held the remaining 3,000 shares.

each of the above shares (hereinafter referred to as "each of the shares of this case") has been held, and has been so far.

Each sovereignty of the EE and EF has not been issued.

C.D, CategoryGG, Plaintiff A on September 17, 2010, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

Violations (Embezzlements) and others charged with the following criminal facts (Tgu District Court 2010Gohap47)

A) On November 19, 2010, IsD was sentenced to the 2-year imprisonment, to the 3-year imprisonment, to the 3-year imprisonment, to the 3-year imprisonment, to the 1-year imprisonment, to the 3-year imprisonment, to the 3-year imprisonment, to the 3-year imprisonment, to the 1-year imprisonment, and to the 2-year imprisonment, respectively, and the above judgment was finalized on November

1)D is a person substantially operating the KE and E, and as a person operating the OF, Category GG, Plaintiff A.

KE, Plaintiff BB is a representative director in each name of the EF.

ii)Co-principal activities of DoD, chiG, Plaintiff Chapter A.

- Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement): KE government funds at least 1,055 times in total.

Embezzlement 629,823,287

- Violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies for Fisheries Products in the name of the Fund

160 million won out of KRW 480 million shall be used for purposes other than the implementation of a subsidy program.

(iii)the occupational embezzlement of DoD;

- Embezzlement 227,650,682 in total with the registration of KE false personnel

- embezzlement of 40,656,103 won in total by personal use of the KEE Corporation Card;

(d) The Director of the Daegu Regional Tax Office shall pay delinquent global income tax of 2,170,389,960 won for the year 2003.

ii) it is confirmed that Does substantially hold each of the shares of this case;

On January 29, 2013, the Defendant immediately seized each of the instant shares and confirmed the issuance of share certificates after seizure and ordered the Defendant to implement realization procedures.

E. On January 29, 2013, the Defendant owned all of the shares of this case.

The entire shares of this case in order to collect the above delinquent tax amount by deeming that title trust was held against the plaintiffs

B. A seizure (hereinafter referred to as "each seizure of this case") and on the 30th of the same month, KE and EF

Each notice of this, and each request for issuance and delivery of share certificates was made.

F. The Plaintiffs appealed and raised an objection on April 29, 2013, but the Daegu Regional Tax Office Commissioner of the Daegu Regional Tax Office.

On June 13, 2013, the decision of dismissal was made, and the plaintiffs again filed an appeal on September 9, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal on December 31, 2013.

Facts having no dispute over recognition, Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 8, 10, Eul's 1 through 6, 13, 15,

16 Each entry of evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Each of the shares of this case is owned by the plaintiffs, and the defendant's shares are owned by the plaintiffs as follows.

It is unlawful to take each of the instant seizure dispositions on the premise that the shares held in title trust are shares.

A) On April 2003, the Plaintiff LA succeeds to the joint and several liability of KRW 680,000 for corporate financial liabilities without payment of the purchase price of shares of KRW 15,000 for shares from the J, etc.

As to the acquisition of shares with capital increase by KRW 400,000,000, which was borrowed from Park K, on November 12, 2011, and acquired KRW 40,000, the Plaintiff’s shares were paid to the KE shares.

It is the actual shareholder who has paid the share price of 55,00 shares.

B) The Plaintiff B assumes 5,00 shares 5,00 shares of the Fund borrowed from HaH.

was given a donation of cash from AD and received 2,000 shares of OF from AD.

Therefore, Plaintiff B is an actual shareholder of 7,000 OF shares. In addition, Plaintiff ACC acquired 3,000 shares of OF shares from OL as the amount donated from ED; thus, Plaintiff B acquired 3,00 shares of OF shares from OL;

ThisCC is an actual shareholder of 3,000 OrF shares.

2) Article 38 of the National Tax Collection Act stipulates that the seizure of securities shall be effected by a tax official’s possession.

The defendant stated that each share certificate of this case was not issued. The defendant's bonds are not issued.

There has been seizure of each of the above shares by means of seizure, and the legal nature and effect of the securities and claims.

Each of the dispositions of this case against the principle of no taxation without law, each of the dispositions of this case

is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Attachment of claims is only the relative effect between the execution creditor and the debtor.

If the seized claim belongs to the right of a third party other than the taxpayer, such attachment disposition;

in the end, it is invalid to seize a non-existent claim, and it does not belong to the taxpayer.

in the legal relationship with the third party debtor, the true holder, even if any claim is seized.

Since there is no influence on the third party, the third party may dispose of the claim and the third party debtor may perform the obligation.

and the third debtor shall not be prohibited from fulfilling his obligations to the third party.

C. Therefore, regarding the disposition of seizure of a tax authority’s claims, the seized claims are reverted to the tax authority.

A person claiming objection has no legal interest in seeking revocation of a seizure disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4959, Jul. 9, 2004).

According to the above facts of recognition, each of the dispositions of this case shall be effected by AD substantially by all the shares of this case.

under the premise that the plaintiffs own each of the shares of this case, i.e., equity shares claims;

as long as it is obvious that the tax official has not issued each share of this case

The plaintiffs do not seize the share certificates, which are securities held by possession, respectively.

Despite the attachment disposition, the right to each of the shares of this case still exists on the premise that they are owned.

the seizure of each of the instant dispositions is subject to any legal infringement due to each of the instant dispositions.

It seems that there is no reason.

Therefore, each of the shares of this case belonging to the plaintiffs upon the attachment disposition of this case

There is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of each attachment disposition of this case on the premise that the right has been infringed.

Therefore, there is no interest in the lawsuit of the plaintiffs seeking the revocation of each of the attachment dispositions of this case.

(v) is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

shall be ruled.