Whether the attachment of one of the co-owners of the land before the division affects the remaining co-owners after the division of the co-ownership

Attachment registration of one of the co-owners of the land before partition shall continue to exist in accordance with the previous shares ratio even after the land before partition is divided into the jointly-owned property.

Article 24 [Attachment] of the National Tax Collection Act

2017dan7356 Other (money)

○ ○

Republic of Korea 2 others

on April 24, 2018

on October 08, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

With respect to the Plaintiff’s real estate indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the real estate in this case”), the Defendant Yoo-gun will implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of seizure completed by the head of the same registry office 20x, knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife n

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The development of Bright of Bright, a limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Bright development”), was a business that sells each of the specific parts of the land to many unspecified persons in the temporary partition drawings, with regard to the land of Dog-ri, Dogsan, Dog-gun, Dog-gun, △△ (hereinafter referred to as “land before the division”).

나. 원고는 20xx. x. x. ●●개발과 분할 전 토지 중 지분 ■■분의 ■■에대하여 가분할도면으로 위치를 특정하여 분양계약을 체결하였다.

C. The Defendants completed the registration of each seizure indicated in the purport of the claim as to the remaining portion of the share in the development of B/L of B/L on each land before subdivision (hereinafter “each seizure registration of this case”).

D. The land before subdivision was divided through the process of subdivision of the co-owned property around x.x.x. the instant real estate, one of the divided lands, was the sole ownership of the Plaintiff. Moreover, each of the instant seizure registrations completed on the land before subdivision was transferred to the registry of the instant real estate.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff was specified in the instant real estate, which was part of the land before the division from BBB development, and the Defendants thereafter seized the remaining shares in the land before the division of BBB development, the seizure is not effective against the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendants, a State agency, permitted the division of the land before the division, and asserted the effect of seizure against the Plaintiff, who is not an obligor, should be considered as abuse of rights. In addition, since the Defendants did not proceed with the separate public sale procedure for five years after the seizure, the claims against BBB development by the Defendants should be deemed to have expired by the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the Defendants should cancel their attachment registration on each of the instant real estate.

3. Determination

(a) Effect of registration of attachment after the partition of the article jointly owned;

From among the co-owned real estate Gap and Eul, security rights, such as the right to collateral security established on the shares of the group Gap, exist on the whole co-owned property according to the previous shares ratio, and are not naturally concentrated on the divided part in the future Gap, a person who has established the right to collateral security, unless otherwise agreed by the group. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu24868, Aug. 8, 1989). The same applies to the registration of attachment.

According to the above legal principles, the registration of seizure of the Defendants’ shares in BB2 development, one of the co-owners of the land before the division, shall continue to exist in accordance with the previous shares ratio even after the land before the division was divided into co-ownership. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot assert that the registration of seizure of the real estate in this case does not have the validity of the registration of seizure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion

B. Whether the defendants' assertion constitutes abuse of rights

The exercise of rights that is not allowed as abuse of rights refers to cases where there is no benefit for those who exercise rights to inflict pain and damage on the other party, and there is an objective violation of social order (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40422, Nov. 27, 2003).

The Defendants: (a) seized the land before the division with the claim for the development of B/L, and upon the division of the said land, the effect of the seizure on the instant real estate has become excessive; (b) thus, the assertion of the validity of the seizure solely intended to cause damage to the Plaintiff; or (c) cannot be deemed to have any benefit to the Defendants, and it cannot be deemed to have violated the objective social

§ 302.

Therefore, since the Defendants cannot be viewed as abuse of rights to claim the effect of seizure of the instant real estate, they cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

C. Whether the Defendants’ claim has expired by prescription

The Defendants seized land before dividing B/L with the national and local tax claims on the development of B/L, respectively, and the five-year extinctive prescription period is applied pursuant to Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 39(1) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes. However, Article 28(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 40(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on Local Taxes provide that the extinctive prescription of the national and local tax claims shall be interrupted by the seizure of the national and local tax claims, and the extinction prescription shall newly run after the cancellation of the seizure. Thus, regardless of whether the Defendants’ seizure of B/L development property by national

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired since the Defendants’ seizure of land before subdivision did not proceed with the public auction procedure separately.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.