Whether the seizure of shares is appropriate

Since a seizure disposition cannot be deemed as being infringed upon any right or legal interest due to a seizure disposition, it shall be deemed that there is no legal interest in seeking cancellation or confirmation of nullity of the seizure disposition on the premise that their rights were infringed upon by the seizure disposition.

The third person’s claim on ownership under Article 50 of the National Tax Collection Act

Ownership claim by a third person under Article 55 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, the judgment confirming that each disposition of seizure of the shares listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiffs on December 8, 2004 by the defendant is invalid, and the judgment that the defendant's disposition of seizure of shares listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiffs on December 8, 2004 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 4, Gap evidence 5, and 6.

A. On July 29, 1992, ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Unemployment”) was established as a corporation that manufactures and sells electronic equipment at KRW 500 million (10,000 of the number of issued stocks, and KRW 5,000 of the par value), the total number of issued stocks was 60,000 of the issued stocks (hereinafter “instant stocks”) and the capital was 3 billion of the issued stocks. The current stock certificates were not issued.

B. On December 7, 2004, the Defendant: (a) deemed that ○○○ as the de facto manager of ○○ Unemployment held the instant shares in title trust with the Plaintiffs; and (b) on December 7, 2004, attached the entire instant shares to collect the delinquent tax amount of 2,916,85,360 won in arrears, including global income tax, for the purpose of collecting the delinquent tax on ○○○○ in arrears (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”); and (c) notified the instant attachment disposition (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

C. At the time of the instant attachment disposition, the shares issued on the shareholder registry of the ○○○○○○○○ was registered as holding each of the 16,800 shares (e.g., face value KRW 84,00,000), Kim○○○, Lee 12,000 shares (e.g., face value KRW 60,000) respectively, and the Plaintiff Lee○○○○○ was registered as holding each of 19,200 shares (e.g., face value KRW 96,00,000).

D. On March 28, 2005, the Plaintiff Lee ○, Kim ○, and Lee ○○ filed a request for a review against the instant attachment disposition on February 1, 2005, respectively, with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for a review on March 17, 2006.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The shares of ○○ Unemployment held by the Plaintiffs are owned by all externally even if they are owned by the Plaintiffs even though they are owned by ○○○○ through loans from ○○○, regardless of ○○○○’s gambling, or legally acquired funds at the time of capital increase with capital increase. Therefore, the instant seizure disposition was unlawful since ○○○, which is not entirely related to the shares of the instant case, deemed as the actual owner of the instant shares.

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment Procedure for Claims] Article 41 (Procedures for National Tax Collection Act) (1) The head of a tax office shall notify the obligor of the attachment of claims.

[2] The third party who desires to claim the ownership of the attached property and request its return shall submit documentary evidence proving the ownership of the attached property to the director of the tax office at least five days prior to its sale.

[Requirements for cancellation of attachment] Article 53 (Requirements for Cancellation of Attachment) (1) The head of a tax office shall release the attachment in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

Article 55 (Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act) (2) If a tax official deems that a request under paragraph (1) is well-grounded, he/she shall release the seizure without delay, and if the reasons are deemed unreasonable, he/she shall notify the claimant of such fact without delay.

C. Determination

On its own initiative, the Plaintiffs’ legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant attachment disposition is examined as to whether there exists a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the instant attachment disposition. Since the attachment of claims only exists the relative effect between an execution creditor and an obligor (taxpayer), if a claim subject to attachment falls under a third party’s right other than a taxpayer, such attachment disposition would eventually be null and void, and if a claim subject to attachment falls under a non-existent claim, and even if a claim not vested in a taxpayer falls under a third party’s right, a third party obligor, who is a genuine right holder, even if a claim not vested in the taxpayer is seized, may claim the performance of an obligation to a third party, and the third party obligor is not prohibited from performing the obligation to a third party. Therefore, there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation or nullification of the attachment disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In light of the above legal principles, since it is evident that Park○-○’s instant shares, i.e., equity shares, are seized on the premise that Park○-○ is the actual holder of the instant shares (the instant attachment disposition is not a seizure on the share certificates, which are securities possessed by a tax official, but a "debtor (which falls under the third debtor in the attachment disposition of claims)" and "creditor (the debtor in the attachment disposition of claims) (which falls under the third debtor in the attachment disposition of claims)" are stated in the notice of attachment of claims (Article 1-1). The Plaintiffs may still exercise their rights on the part of the instant shares, regardless of the instant attachment disposition, under the premise that they are the actual holder of the instant shares, and may not be deemed to have suffered any infringement of rights or legal interests due to the instant attachment disposition.

Therefore, under the premise that part of the shares of this case belong to their owner, whether the plaintiffs can file an application for cancellation of the attachment of this case with the defendant and appeal against the rejection disposition can be filed in an administrative litigation shall be set aside, and there is no legal benefit to seek cancellation or confirmation of invalidity of the attachment disposition of this case on the premise that their shareholders' rights were infringed by the attachment disposition of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.