Action for cancellation of attachment registration

The plaintiff's assertion and evidence alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant agreed to cancel the registration of seizure, and since the cancellation of seizure and seizure is an administrative disposition of the head of the competent district tax office, it is not possible to seek cancellation of the registration of seizure as a general civil lawsuit unless it falls under the invalidity of the validity of validity. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Article 54 [Release of Attachment] of the National Tax Collection Act

2016da 53465 Action for the cancellation of registration of seizure

AA and 1

Korea

August 25, 2017

November 10, 2017

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of seizure registration completed by the Jeju District Court No. 0000 on August 17, 1998 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 26, 1998, AB, the plaintiffs' references, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation with respect to 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") to the plaintiffs on November 26, 1998.

B. Meanwhile, on August 13, 1998, the Defendant seized each of the instant real estate on the ground that the inheritance tax was delinquent by AB, and on August 17, 1998, the Defendant completed the attachment registration (hereinafter “instant attachment registration”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. On August 13, 1998, AB was notified of the attachment of each of the instant real estate on the same day, and visited the Jeju Tax Office on the same day to the effect that "the value of each of the instant real estate is less than 50 million won pursuant to Article 53 (2) 2 and 4 of the National Tax Collection Act, but it may be cancelled if a person pays a delinquent tax amount exceeding 50 million won or provides other property to seize the instant real estate instead of each of the instant real estate," and as a result, AB sent an answer to the effect that "the above attachment may be cancelled." Accordingly, AB would substitute BB's stocks held by it as property for the attachment of 00,000 shares (hereinafter referred to as "stocks of this case"), and the relevant employee would be able to cancel the attachment registration of each of the instant real estate by assessing the value of each of the instant real estate as KRW 00,000,000,000,000,0000.

B. Preliminaryly, on July 7, 1997, AB decided and notified KRW 00,00,000 as inherent inheritance tax by the Defendant, but thereafter, the additional inheritance tax was not served on April 5, 199 and August 30, 199, and there is no legal effect as a legitimate taxation. In addition, since AB paid inheritance tax in excess of the total amount of the inheritance tax paid by all other successors, the tax liability of AB terminates in its entirety. The Defendant is liable to cancel the registration of this case.

Even if AB’s inheritance tax remains, it is obligated to cancel the registration of this case due to the payment of remaining inheritance tax and simultaneous implementation.

3. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are merely owners of each real estate of this case and have a de facto indirect interest in the registration of seizure of this case, and that it is not the party to seek the cancellation or nullity of the seizure disposition concerning each real estate of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs are seeking the cancellation of the seizure registration of this case against the defendant by excluding interference based on ownership. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this premise is groundless.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. Judgment on the main argument

According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the defendant's internal computer system of 198.3, 005, 009, 009-2, 020, 026, 026-1, 026-3, and 741 shares were entered in the seizure of the real estate before 1998. The defendant's allegation that the above Gap's internal computer system of 1, 1998 was entered in the list No. 1, 1, 300, 90, 90, 90, 90, 900, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 1,000, 1,000, 1,0000, 1,000,000.

B. Determination as to the conjunctive assertion

There is inheritance tax in arrears with AB at the time of the registration of the seizure of this case, and accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties to the seizure of each real estate of this case.

The cancellation of the registration of seizure and its registration shall be entrusted to the head of the competent tax office with the registration of the seizure of real estate as a disposition of national tax in arrears, and the cancellation of the seizure and its registration is an administrative disposition of the head of the competent tax office, so long as it does not fall under the invalidation of abrupt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 77Da2138, Jun. 27, 1978; 85Da81, Nov. 12, 1985; 85No325, Nov. 12, 1985). The plaintiffs asserted cancellation of the registration of the seizure of this case on the condition that AB paid or unpaid taxes after the registration of the seizure of this case, the pertinent assertion alone cannot be deemed as a ground for invalidation of the registration of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion based on this premise is without merit (in case of a request for cancellation of registration of the seizure of preliminary registration pursuant to the seizure of this case, it can be deemed that it is unlawful to seek cancellation of registration of seizure 1815.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.