Disposition of seizure on the property of a third party who is not a taxpayer shall be null and void as it is impossible to legally realize the contents of such disposition.

Even if national taxes are imposed on the truster in relation to the trust property, if the properties are not seized before the trust under the Trust Act takes place, the taxation claim cannot be viewed as falling under the "right arising from the cause before the trust" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act, which exceptionally permits the compulsory execution or auction against the trust

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Guhap28100 Nullification of attachment disposition

XX Stock Company

Head of the District Tax Office

December 7, 2012

January 4, 2013

1. Attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on May 14, 2012 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (1) and attachment disposition, and 2012.

6.8. A refund attachment disposition for each real estate listed in the Schedule (2) is confirmed to be null and void.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the trust business stipulated in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act. The Plaintiff is a company that proceeds from the promotion of the new business with 3,316 generations in Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”). B. On April 12, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate trust contract with the Plaintiff on the unsold apartment among the instant apartment units, and completed the registration under the name of the Plaintiff on April 14, 201 under the Trust Act on the ground of the trust contract. In addition, on May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate trust contract with respect to the unregistered apartment among the instant apartment units (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trust contract”) and completed the registration under the name of the Plaintiff’s trust contract on May 30, 2011.

C. The Defendant failed to pay corporate tax and value-added tax arising from the sale of the apartment of this case. Such taxation claims constitute “the right arising from the cause before the trust” as stipulated in the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act (amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the following grounds: (a) on May 14, 2012, the Defendant issued a seizure disposition on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (1) among the unregistered apartments registered in the trust on May 16, 2012; and (b) on June 8, 2012, the seizure disposition was made on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (2) among the unsold apartments unsold in the trust registry on June 13, 2012, and completed the seizure registration on June 13, 2012 (hereinafter “each of the above seizure disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The attachment of trust property in the name of the Plaintiff, the trustee, based on the claim against XX is subject to the property of a third party, not the taxpayer, and does not fall under the exceptional grounds under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act allowing compulsory execution against the trust property. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful, and its defect is serious and obvious.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The term "trust" in Article 1 (2) of the Trust Act refers to a legal relationship in which the truster transfers or disposes of a specific property right to the trustee, and has the trustee manage or dispose of such property right for the benefit of the beneficiary, or for a specific purpose," and Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act provides that the trust property shall not be subject to compulsory execution or auction, except in the case of the right arising before the trust or the right arising from the performance of the trust affairs.

According to the purport of Article 1(2) of the Trust Act, when comprehensively taking account of the fact that the trust property under the Trust Act is wholly and externally owned to the trustee and its ownership is not reserved to the truster in the internal and external relationship with the truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da70460, Apr. 12, 2002). Article 21(1) of the Trust Act provides that in order to ensure the independence of the trust property to facilitate the purpose of the trust, even if national taxes are imposed on the truster in relation to the trust property, if the national taxes are not seized before the trust under the Trust Act takes place, the taxation claim cannot be deemed as falling under the “right arising from the trust cause” under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act, which exceptionally permits compulsory execution or auction of the trust property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct. 15, 196); and Article 21(1) of the Trust Act does not include the truster’s right to receive 1014.

Meanwhile, in a case where Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides for the requirements for seizure as a disposition on default, limits the object of seizure to the taxpayer’s property. As such, a disposition of seizure on a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, may not be legally realized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da68924, Feb. 23, 2001).

(2) The instant disposition is a compulsory execution against the trust property prohibited under Article 21(1) proviso of the Trust Act, which is a compulsory execution against the trust property prohibited under compulsory execution, and is subject to a third party’s property without a legitimate ground, and thus, constitutes a legitimate invalidation. The instant disposition is a compulsory execution against the trust property prohibited under Article 21(1) proviso of the Trust Act.

As the defendant's trust contract of this case was made with the intention to escape from the disposition on default, the defendant asserts that the contract is null and void because it is in violation of good morals and other social order, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the above argument of the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.