Disposition of attaching trust property shall be null and void.

Real estate collateral trust property is the property that the non-party company entrusted to the plaintiff, a trust company, and the seizure disposition is null and void since it is a disposition for the property of a third party, not the delinquent, and the tax claim for the trust property that is allowed to be enforced refers only to the tax claim imposed on the trustee.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011Guhap8555 Nullification of a seizure disposition

XX Trust Corporation

O Head of the tax office

May 27, 2011

July 13, 2011

1. Each attachment disposition rendered on February 11, 2009 by the head of the Dong Daegu Tax Office on the real estate listed in the Attachment No. 1, and each attachment disposition made on July 6, 2009 by the head of the Gu in the Daegu Metropolitan City on July 6, 2009

It confirms that all attachment disposition is invalid.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. XX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") entered into a real estate security trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on February 1, 2006, under which the real estate as shown in [Attachment 1 and 2] is entrusted to the Plaintiff, and around that time, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of prior deposit in the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case").

B. On February 11, 2009, the head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office attached the real estate in attached Form 1 on the ground that the non-party company did not pay the total amount of KRW 2,360,234,950, including the comprehensive real estate holding tax for the year 2007. On July 6, 2009, the head of the defendant Daegu District Tax Office attached the real estate in attached Form 2 on the ground that the non-party company did not pay the total amount of KRW 184,275,250, including the acquisition tax for the year 207 (hereinafter the "each disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In the case of trust property, in principle, compulsory execution is prohibited, but it is exceptionally permitted only when it falls under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act. Each of the instant dispositions is a seizure of a third party’s property, and it does not constitute an exception under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act, and thus, is null

3. Related statutes;

4. Determination

A. According to the provisions of Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides for the requirements for seizure as a disposition on default, in any case or where the subject matter of seizure is limited to the taxpayer’s property, a disposition of seizure against a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, shall be null and void as it is not legally realized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da68924, Feb. 23, 2001). Furthermore, if a truster transfers the ownership of real estate to a trustee and a trust relationship is established between the parties pursuant to the Trust Act, the trust property shall belong to the trustee and shall not be deemed the truster’s property after the trust is entrusted. Accordingly, even if the truster of trust property is a taxpayer, seizure against the trust property reverted to the trustee based on the truster’s tax claims against the truster shall not be deemed a seizure against the third party’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct.

Since the instant real estate is the property that the non-party company entrusted to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s seizure of the instant real estate, the trustee, based on the tax claim against the non-party company that is the truster, cannot be legally realized, and thus is null and void.

B. As to this, the Defendants’ taxation claims against the non-party company of the Defendants are stipulated in Article 21(1) of the Trust Act.

The instant disposition asserts that the instant disposition is lawful, since it constitutes a case where compulsory execution is exceptionally allowed for the trust property as the “right arising in the course of performing the trust affairs” under the proviso of paragraph (1)

The "right arising from the management and disposal of the trust property" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act includes not only the right arising from the management and disposal of the trust property (such as the trustee's right to claim expenses and damages under Article 42 of the Trust Act, and the right to claim remuneration under Article 43 of the same Act) but also the tax claim on the trust property, which is the right related to the prior property itself. However, when a trust relationship is established under the Trust Act, the trust property is reverted to the trustee, and it cannot be seized against the truster's prior property due to a tax claim against the truster (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct. 15, 196). Accordingly, the taxation claim against the trust property for which compulsory execution is exceptionally permitted under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act shall be deemed to refer only to the taxation claim imposed on the trustee, not the truster. Therefore, the Defendants' taxation claims do not constitute the "right under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act."

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.