Daegu District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-20690 ( April 21, 2015)

Cho High 2013Gu4572 ( December 31, 2013)

In respect of seizure by deeming that there is a separate owner of shares, a third party has no interest in the action to seek the revocation of seizure

(1) As the seizure of claims is limited to the relative effect between the execution creditor and the debtor, there is no influence on the legal relationship between the third party debtor. Therefore, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the seizure disposition by the tax authority as to the seizure of claims by the tax authority, and there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the seizure disposition.

Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daegu High Court 2015Nu4700 Revocation of Attachment

Chapter AA, thisA, and thisB

Head of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Guhap20690 decided January 21, 2015

oly 2015.24

208.28

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed. 2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's shares in the name of the plaintiff A on January 29, 2013, which are held by the company of the plaintiff A.

55,00 shares in the name of the Plaintiff, 7,000 shares in the name of the Plaintiff, and shares in the name of the Plaintiff B.

Attachment Disposition against Company OA's 3,00 shares (hereinafter referred to as "instant Attachment Disposition") shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged in the court of first instance do not differ significantly from the contents alleged by the plaintiffs in the court of first instance, and even when examining all the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the purport of the entire arguments in the court of first instance and the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance that determined that the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case is unlawful since there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the attachment disposition in this case. The reasons why the court should explain this case are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits in this case are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.