Disposition of attaching trust property in arrears of the truster shall be null and void.

'The right that occurred in the course of performing the trust affairs' shall not be deemed as the right that occurred prior to the trust, so long as the national tax in arrears was established after the real estate trust without including the right that includes only the trustee's act as the debtor and the trustee's act as the debtor, the disposition that seizes the trust property for the default of the truster'

2013Guhap52322 Nullification of attachment disposition

AAA Trust Co., Ltd.

Head of Seocho Tax Office

May 3, 2013

May 10, 2013

1. 피고가 2011. 9. 21. 이천시 OOOO읍 OOOO리 0000 대 537.6㎡， 같은 리 0000 대 408㎡， 같은 리 00000 대 447.1㎡ 및 같은 리 00000 대 443.7㎡에 대하여 한 압류 처분은 무효임을 확인한다.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of the trust and seizure disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the trust business.

"나. 원고는 2005. 6. 1. 주식회사 OO(이하위탁자'라 한다)과 위탁자 소유인 이천시 OOOO읍 OOOO리 000 대 537.6㎡， 같은 리 000-1 대 408㎡， 같은 리 000-2 대 447.1㎡ 및 같은 리 0000 대 443.7㎡(이하 통틀어이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여 우선수익자를 주식회사 OOOOO저축은행， 증서금액을 000000원으로 하는 부동산담보신탁계약을 체결하고， 같은 날 원고 명의로 신탁을 원인으로 하는 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.", "다. 피고는 위탁자가 2006년분 부가가치세와 2007년분부터 2010년분까지의 종합부 동산세 및 농어촌특별세 합계 0000원을 체납하였다며 2011. 9. 21. 이 사건 부동산을 압류하였다(이하이 사건 처분'이라 한다).",[인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실， 갑 제1호증의 1부터 4， 갑 제2호증의 1부터 4의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant real estate was completely transferred to the Plaintiff, the trustee, due to the creation of the trust, and the instant disposition was subject to the property of a third party, not the taxpayer, and thus, its content cannot be legally realized, and thus is null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

(1) According to the provisions of Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides for the requirements of seizure as a disposition for arrears, the disposition of seizure for a third party's property, which is not a taxpayer, is limited to the taxpayer's property, and thus, the contents of the disposition of seizure for the taxpayer's property cannot be legally realized. Thus, if a truster transfers the ownership of the real property to the trustee and a trust relationship between the parties is established under the Trust Act, unlike a simple title trust, the trust property is attributed to the trustee, and the truster's property still cannot be seen as the trustee's property even after the trust is established, and therefore, the disposition of this case is not subject to seizure for the truster's trust property based on a tax claim against the truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct. 15, 196). Ultimately, the disposition of this case is a trustee to collect the tax claim against the truster who is a taxpayer, and it is invalid as the seizure of the plaintiff's property, which is a third party

(2) Even if the proviso of Article 21(1) of the former Trust Act (amended by Act No. 10924, Jul. 25, 2011) allows compulsory execution or auction in the event of the right arising from the trust or the right arising from the performance of trust affairs, and “the right arising from the performance of trust affairs” does not include only the right to the trustee as the debtor but also does not include the truster as the debtor (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du27998, Jan. 24, 2013). As seen earlier, as long as all delinquent taxes related to the disposition of this case were established after the trust of the real estate of this case, it is obvious that the disposition of this case was established after the trust of the real estate of this case, it constitutes “the right interest arising from the cause prior to the trust,” and therefore, the defendant’s assertion that the disposition of this case is justified under the above provision of the above Act is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.