Effect of attachment disposition of a person whose liability for tax payment is not delayed or others' property;

If there was no delay in the taxpayer's liability to pay taxes, or the attachment of the property of another person other than the taxpayer has been executed, the attachment disposition is an invalid disposition which has a significant and obvious defect in the subject of the attachment.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu486 delivered on December 18, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 24(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, a disposition of seizure is a disposition of invalidation which has a grave and obvious defect in the subject of seizure, if a taxpayer's liability for tax payment was delayed, and the taxpayer's obligation for tax payment was not paid even though its payment was urged, or the head of a tax office did not pay it in full within the designated time limit after the payment was notified prior to the due date. Thus, if there was no delay in the taxpayer's liability for tax payment or a seizure was conducted on the property of another person other than the taxpayer's property, the seizure disposition is a disposition of invalidation which has a grave

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the real estate in this case was owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant imposed and notified the non-party 610,593,710 won of capital gains tax on December 10, 1983 on the non-party 14 of the same year before the defendant imposed and notified the non-party 610,593,710 won on the plaintiff's father, and the non-party 1 of the same year intended to provide real estate as a security for tax payment. The attachment disposition in this case was conducted on the non-party 1 of the same year before a tax payment notice is served on the non-party 1 of the same year, and it was justified in the court below's decision that the attachment disposition in this case was invalid (However, although the above real estate in the reasoning of the court below stated that the non-party 1 was owned by the plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that it was owned by the non-party 1).

The Defendant’s ground of appeal argues that the attachment of the instant real estate is justifiable since the Nonparty provided the instant real estate as security for tax liability by himself/herself, if the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration was made between the father and the Nonparty on the ground of trade reservation in terms of social norms, the instant real estate belongs to the Nonparty, who is the father, who is the de facto father, and thus, it cannot be employed merely

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)