Daegu High Court 2011Na1881 ( October 14, 2011)

Tax claims do not constitute "the right arising in the course of performing the trust business" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act.

The Defendant’s disposition of seizing the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the trustee, based on the instant taxation claim against the trustor, is null and void as a seizure of the property of a third party, not a delinquent taxpayer, without any justifiable ground. The instant taxation claim does not constitute “the right arising from the conduct of trust affairs” under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act.

Article 21 of the Trust Act

2011Da9948 (Counterclaim) Registration and Cancellation of Real Estate Seizure

AAA Asset Trust Co., Ltd.

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 201Na1881 decided October 14, 2011

April 26, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A trust under the Trust Act is a legal relationship in which a truster transfers a specific property right to a trustee or takes other measures, and has a trustee manage, and dispose of such property rights for the benefit of a beneficiary or for a specific purpose (Article 1(2) of the Trust Act), and where the trustee completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the trustee, the ownership is entirely transferred to the trustee inside and outside the country, and is not reserved against the truster in an internal relationship with the truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da70460, Apr. 12, 2002). Meanwhile, Article 21(1) of the Trust Act provides that "a trust shall not be subject to compulsory execution or auction against the trust property." However, the purpose of legislation is to ensure the independence of the trust property in order to smoothly achieve the purpose of the trust. This is only to ensure the trustee's right to manage the trust property under the proviso to Article 21(1) of the Trust Act.

"BB", citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, and BB (hereinafter referred to as "B") is a taxpayer of the above 54 lots of land in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, O0-0, entered into a contract for sale management and trust with the company of this case on September 16, 2005, and BBB entered into a contract for sale management and trust with the company of this case on the property of this case, and did not pay 3.3 billion won of value-added tax after the commencement of the new construction of the commercial building of this case. On the other hand, the court below rejected the court below's judgment that found that BB did not constitute a taxpayer of this case's tax claim of this case on the ground that it did not constitute a taxpayer of this case's property of this case, which was unsold in lots and remaining as above, and that it did not constitute a taxpayer of this case's tax claim of this case on September 11, 2007 and that it did not constitute a taxpayer of this case's tax claim of this case.

4. All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party upon the assent of all participating Justices.

It is so decided as per Disposition at the expense of the court.