The defendant's seizure disposition on the real estate of this case is valid, and there is no other evidence to deem the seizure disposition null and void.

If the property subject to seizure is real estate, it shall be determined by the validity of registration if the property belongs to the taxpayer. The plaintiff is only the claimant for the registration of ownership transfer against the nominal owner. The defendant's seizure disposition on the real estate of this case is valid, and there is no other evidence that the seizure disposition is invalid, and the claim for cancellation of

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Registration of transfer of ownership and cancellation of attachment and provisional attachment;

Korea

○ ○

2017.05.24

1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

The plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") shall be the defendant's Republic of Korea; the defendant's Republic of Korea shall register the cancellation of the registration of the real estate of this case, which was completed on April 24, 200 by ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○ registry office 6114, which was received on April 24, 200; the attachment registration completed on March 30, 2002 by 4977; the attachment registration completed on May 22, 2002 by 2122, which was completed on May 22, 2002 by the same registry office (hereinafter referred to as "each entry registration of this case"); and the provisional attachment registration of this case shall be cancelled by the defendant ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant ○○○") which was completed on May 27, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the provisional attachment registration of this case").

1. The plaintiff's assertion

In around 1981, the Plaintiff et al. was a de facto owner who purchased the instant real estate from Kim○○, a nominal owner on the registry, and the Defendant Republic of Korea registered the instant seizure on the instant real estate on account of his tax delinquency by Kim○○, a nominal owner on the registry, and Defendant ○○○, a creditor of Kim○○○, completed the instant provisional seizure registration on the instant real estate. The Defendants’ registration of seizure and provisional seizure was actually seized or provisionally seized on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff et al., so the Defendants must cancel the registration

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

Each registration of seizure completed by the Republic of Korea with respect to the real estate in this case is based on the disposition of seizure and thus an administrative disposition becomes the cause for registration. In principle, a lawsuit disputing the validity of an administrative disposition is an administrative litigation. However, if an administrative disposition is void as a matter of course, this can no longer take effect as an administrative act from the beginning, and thus, the invalidation of such disposition can always be disputed at any time, and the court is not bound by such administrative disposition, and it is not necessarily subject to confirmation of invalidity in the administrative disposition. Therefore, it is justifiable to seek removal of execution based on the disposition of delinquency in arrears (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Da81, Nov. 12, 1985). A claim filed by the Plaintiff et al. against the Republic of Korea by the Plaintiff et al. against the Defendant is a disposition of real estate owned by a third party, which is not a taxpayer of the Republic of Korea, and thus, seek cancellation of each registration of seizure under the premise

In the event that the property subject to seizure is real estate, the issue of whether the property belongs to the taxpayer's ownership shall be determined by the validity of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu61, Jul. 10, 1984). According to the evidence No. 1, Kim○-○ may recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 28, 1995 by the ○○○ District Court ○○○ Registry 11843, which was received on March 15, 1981, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, etc., the plaintiff et al. is the person who has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer against Kim○-○, by selling the real estate in this case from Kim○-○, and thus, while the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Kim○-○○, the defendant's seizure of each of the real estate in this case was valid and no other evidence exists to deem that each of the above seizure dispositions is invalid.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○○○

Where the registration of provisional seizure on real estate becomes null and void, the owner of the real estate may request the creditor of provisional seizure to cancel the registration of provisional seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2136, Oct. 11, 1988). The Plaintiff, etc., who is not a party to the decision of provisional seizure claims that the registration of provisional seizure by Defendant ○○○○ was against the real estate owned by a third party on the premise that he is the owner of the

However, as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff et al. was the owner of the instant real estate. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff et al. is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff et al. was the owner of the instant real estate. Thus, on the premise that the Plaintiff et al. was the owner of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff et al. seeking the cancellation of the registration of provisional seizure on the premise that it is not reasonable (the Plaintiff et al.’s claim against the Defendant ○○○○○○○○ has expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, so the Defendant et al.’s claim against the Defendant 1 and 2 should be cancelled the registration of provisional seizure. However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, ○○○○○○○○○○ filed a lawsuit against the said Defendant’s claim against the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on August 8, 2011, on the premise that the Defendant’s claim against the said ○○○○○○○○○ was paid KRW 2000.00.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims against the Defendants by the Plaintiff et al. are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.