logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.18 2016구합6122
압류무효확인의 소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a corporation established on May 15, 1995 for the purpose of carrying on an engineering work business.

B. B is indicated as a shareholder holding 6,500 shares of C from 1997 to 130,000 shares issued by C (hereinafter “instant shares”), and the remaining 123,50 shares are written as the Plaintiff’s father D and their relatives.

C. On January 14, 2002, the Defendant seized the instant shares on the ground that B did not pay the value-added tax, income tax, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] . [This case’s disposition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. As to the lawsuit of this case to the effect that the actual owner of the shares in this case’s defense prior to the merits is the Plaintiff, and the disposition of this case is null and void as an attachment against the Plaintiff’s property, the Defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff, which was not confirmed as the beneficial owner of the shares in this case, cannot be deemed as being infringed on legal interests due to the disposition of this case, since it cannot be said that

(b) The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in the attached statutes.

C. The seizure of claims is limited to the relative effect between the execution creditor (tax office) and the debtor (taxpayer). If the seized claim belongs to a third party’s right, such seizure disposition is no longer effective because it is the seizure of the non-existent claim, and even if a claim not reverted to the taxpayer is seized, it does not affect the legal relationship with the third party’s garnishee who is the real right holder. Therefore, the third party may dispose of the claim and claim the third party’s performance of the obligation.

arrow