The third party's objection raised by the heir in the distribution of dividends after the seizure of the property of the heir is reasonable.

Since the attachment disposition of the property itself is null and void after the attachment of the property by the person who is not the heir, the distribution of the property after the request for delivery is received after the attachment of the property by the person who is not the heir, the compulsory execution of the attachment should not be permitted.

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

Cheongju District Court 2014Kadan3125 ( October 26, 2015)

000 and 3 others

Korea

on October 06, 2015

on October 26, 2015

1. The part of the instant lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution shall be dismissed.

2. On March 21, 2013, according to the seizure (property tax and corporate tax) dated March 21, 2013, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against each real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 22, 2013, against Nonpartyqq.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/3 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), u3000, and the remaining costs are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 22, 2014 by the same court with respect to a compulsory auction case of real estate at Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, Cheongju District Court, 2013 Mata 4520, the amount of dividends to the defendant shall be deleted, and the defendant shall be removed from 17,83,351

On March 21, 2013, seizure (property corporation tax and 1171) execution shall not be permitted.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Change of ownership of each real estate of this case

1) Aa completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance on April 1, 1997 with respect to 00 -00 -00 -00 - 00 - 00 - - 00 - 00 -***-6 - 519-7 - 69 m2 (hereinafter referred to as “the foregoing real estate” as well as the above real estate”).

2) On November 5, 2012, ee loan Co., Ltd. completed each registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance as of March 7, 2010 in the name of the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and Nonparty ttt,qq,qq,qt, qy under the name of the designated parties, designated parties, and Nonparty ttt,qt, qy, and qy under the title of the Seoul Central District Court 2006Da84088 Decided November 5, 2012.

3) On January 24, 2013, ee Loan Co., Ltd. completed the registration of correction of ownership on the ground of the renunciation of inheritance on January 24, 2013, Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court 2010-Ma182, the ground for subrogation for the right to claim the registration of correction of ownership by renunciation of inheritance. Of each of the instant real estate, the registration of correction of ownership on the ground of the renunciation of inheritance on June 15, 2010 in the name of the Plaintiff, the designated parties, and Nonpartyqqqq.

B. Progress of auction for each real estate of this case

1) On May 28, 2013, the Cheongju District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on each of the instant real estate on May 28, 2013 upon the application of ee loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant auction”).

2) On March 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) on March 21, 2013, upon Nonpartyqq’s delinquency in capital gains tax, seized the entire equity share of the instant real estate (property corporate tax and corporate tax, 1171, hereinafter “instant seizure”); and (b) on March 21, 2014, the Defendant requested issuance of increased additional charges monthly added to KRW 52,473,750 and the date of distribution to the instant auction court.

3) In the instant auction, the draft of the distribution schedule stated that the Defendant’s 17,833,351 won was distributed in the order of 17,83,351 in the order of priority to the Defendant who seized the qq of shares among the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff and the designated parties appeared on the date of distribution on April 22, 2014, and raised an objection against the entire amount of the Defendant’s claim and the amount of the distribution. Accordingly, the instant auction court suspended

(c)The family relations register referred to in aa is recorded with the children of the plaintiff, the designated parties and the non-party quu,q,qii,qii and qy;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the part of the objection against distribution

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the part of the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution among the lawsuit of this case.

B. A person who is standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to a creditor or debtor who has made an objection as to the distribution schedule by attending the date of distribution on the date of distribution, and the third party is not entitled to make an objection as to the distribution schedule by attending the date of distribution on the date of distribution and raising an objection as to the distribution schedule, since the third party's goods are mistaken as owned by the debtor, and at the auction as the subject matter of compulsory execution, they do not constitute an interested party, and therefore, even if the third party appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule, this is illegal objection, and there is no standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da6315

C. The facts that the plaintiff and the designated parties appeared on the date of distribution of the auction of this case and raised an objection to the whole amount of the defendant's claims and dividends are as seen earlier. However, the defendant seized the shares in the name of qq from each of the real estate of this case. The plaintiff and the designated parties are invalid for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of 1/5q from each of the real estate of this case, and the above shares are deemed to have been raised against the distribution schedule on the actual grounds that they are owned by the plaintiff and the designated parties. The reason for the substantive reason is that there is no relation with the status of the owner of the remaining shares (4/5 of each of the real estate of this case) from among the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff and the designated parties are in the status of the original owner of 1/5 of each of the above shares. In light of the legal principles as seen in this Section, even if the plaintiff and the designated parties are the true owner of 1/5 shares from each of the above real estate of this case, the plaintiff and the designated parties cannot raise a legitimate objection.

3. Determination as to the third party’s objection

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Non-partyqq is not a natural parent between qff and aaa, but a zzzr. Accordingly, qq does not inherit the property of Aa, and the plaintiff and the designated parties own each of the real property of this case, the inherited property of Aaa, according to their inheritance shares. Accordingly, since the transfer of ownership in the name of qq with respect to 1/5 of each of the real property of this case is null and void, the defendant's compulsory execution on March 22, 2013 with respect to 1/5 of each of the real property of this case should be denied.

2) The defendant's assertion

qqs are presumed to be the owner of each of the above units according to the presumption of ownership transfer registration in the name of qqs with respect to one fifth of each of the above units of immovable property. qqqs were listed as a person of Aa and entered as a family register from 1976 to 1980 in view of the fact that the qqs and the resident registration address of Aa are the same from 1976 to 1980. Accordingly, the qs are deemed to be the full adoption of Aa. Accordingly, the above real property of this case, which is the inherited property of Aa, are owned in accordance with their inheritance shares. Accordingly, the defendant's compulsory execution against one fifth of the qs in the name of 15th of the above units on March 22, 2013 following the seizure of this case is legitimate.

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the court rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty qq seeking confirmation of paternity (Cheongju District Court Cheongju District Court 2014ddan813). In the above case, on February 4, 2015, the court rendered a judgment that “qq is registered as a natural father who was born between him and her as his father, because the qq is born between qq and zzz, and the actual qq is born between qq and zzz, it can be recognized that there is no parental relation between Ma.” Accordingly, qq is not recognized as a natural father.

2) In addition, the report of birth of the natural father as the intention of the parties to establish the adoptive parent relationship and if the actual requirements of adoption are met, the adoption takes effect even if the adoption was committed in such a form, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same content as that of the adoptive parent relationship in law except for those that can be resolved by the dissolution of adoptive relation. Thus, the report of birth of the natural father in this case has the function of the adoption report publicly announcing the adoptive parent relationship, but there is an agreement of adoption in order to ensure that the actual requirements of adoption are met. However, there is no ground for invalidation of adoption as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 83 of the Civil Act, such as that there is no legal representative's falling short of the age of 15, and that the adopted child is not an adoptive parent's existence or extension, and even if the adopted child did not meet the above requirements, if the adopted child does not meet the above requirements, it cannot be seen that the adoption report would take effect as an adoption report if the adopted child did not meet the above requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20100Meua.

3) Therefore, since qq is not a successor to a Aa, and our law does not recognize the credibility in the registration of real estate as to the real estate, it is reasonable to deem that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the qq obtained on March 7, 2010 and June 15, 2010 on the inheritance of each of the instant real estate as of March 7, 2010 and that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the qq obtained on the ground of the renunciation of inheritance as of June 15, 2010 is null and void. Thus, under the premise that the Defendant owned the qqqqq in each of the instant real estate as of March 21, 2013 based on the seizure (property tax and corporate tax) of March 22, 2013 on the premise that the qqqqq is owned by the qqqqqq in each of the instant real estate.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution in this case is dismissed as unlawful, and the part of the third party's objection is accepted as reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.