Whether the attachment of the property owned by a third party is a defective disposition

Even if a judgment was rendered in favor of the execution of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer before seizure disposition, it cannot be deemed that the ownership of real estate was acquired until the registration of ownership transfer is completed.

Article 45 of the National Tax Collection Act (Procedures for Attachment of Real Estate, etc.)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 12, 2004, the Defendant confirmed that the attachment disposition on 00 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a 109 square meters is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s ○○○, the former husband, operated ○○○-dong 1, Busan, ○○-dong 27 in 27, “○○-dong 1,” which operated from October 25, 1994 to November 30, 2004, and did not pay the 2-year fixed value-added tax and the 1-year scheduled value-added tax for 2002.

B. On March 12, 2004, the Defendant seized the value-added tax of which ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 109mm2 (hereinafter “instant real property”) with the right to enforce the said value-added tax, and completed the registration of the attachment on March 15, 2004 by the Changwon District Court No. 7132, supra, under the title of the ownership of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, 109m2 (hereinafter “instant real property”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

With respect to the plaintiff's claim that the attachment disposition of this case against the real estate of this case seeks to confirm its nullity, the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it did not go through the prior trial procedure under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, so it shall undergo the prior trial procedure in the case of a lawsuit seeking revocation of an administrative disposition and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission (Articles 18 and 38 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act). However, it is not necessary to go through the prior trial procedure in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity like the lawsuit of this case (Article 38 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act). The defendant'

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case against the Jeon-man Kim Jong-man, and the above judgment was finalized on October 23, 1997, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case on or around October 23, 1997, regardless of whether the registration was made. However, the defendant issued the attachment disposition of this case on or around March 12, 2004 with the title of the real estate of this case, which was owned by the plaintiff as the title of execution. Thus, the attachment disposition of this case is a defective attachment disposition for the real estate owned by a third party, which is not a delinquent taxpayer, and its defect is significant and apparent and null and void.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Jeon-dong Kim Jong-do, ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○○, 190 square meters in the same Ri-si, Dong-si, 1,240 square meters in the same Ri-si, 357 square meters in the same Ri-si, 590 square meters in the same Ri-ri, 590 square meters in the same Ri-si, ○○○○, 490 square meters in the same Ri-2, ○○○-2, 490 square meters in the same Ri-ri, and ○○○○○○○, including the instant real estate, to obtain a favorable judgment on October 23, 1997.

(2) On November 17, 1997, all of the above real estate was subject to registration of ownership transfer in the future of the ○○○, the husband of the Plaintiff, on the ground of inheritance by agreement and division as of October 28, 1997.

(3) The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on March 31, 2003 on the ground of donation from March 26, 2003, all of the above real estate except for the instant real estate. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the ground of sale on November 24, 2004, after the date of the instant seizure disposition ( March 12, 2004).

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the above facts, it is apparent that the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was made after the instant attachment disposition, and the judgment obtained by filing a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to a juristic act, such as a transfer agreement, such as the Plaintiff’s final and conclusive judgment in favor of the above Kim ○, does not constitute a judgment under Article 187 of the Civil Act, since the judgment itself has no formative effect of real estate acquisition, and thus, even if the Plaintiff was given the above favorable judgment prior to the instant attachment disposition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate until the registration of transfer is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Da129, Oct. 12, 1982).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the above winning judgment of the execution of the procedure for transfer of ownership became final and conclusive, and the acquisition of ownership of the real estate of this case without the transfer of ownership is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.