Since it is owned by a delinquent taxpayer at the time of attachment disposition, disposition to refuse attachment is legitimate.

Even if the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate is completed after filing a lawsuit against the delinquent taxpayer after the attachment disposition, such circumstance alone alone cannot be said to have become final and conclusive as a civil lawsuit, and the original disposition is legitimate.

2015Guhap80178 Revocation of revocation of revocation of attachment

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

on December 22, 2016

on October 27, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition rejecting the cancellation of attachment on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 4, 2011, the defendant collected value-added tax of 52,590,640 won in arrears by Kim○-○ on October 4, 201.

In this case, the real estate of this case, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed in the future, Kim ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "delinquent"), was seized (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

B. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was on the ground of sale on November 5, 2011 with respect to the instant real estate.

The registration of ownership transfer is completed.

C. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cancel the attachment of the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cancel the attachment:

On June 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would refuse the application for cancellation of attachment (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”).

The rejection disposition is called a rejection disposition).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 8, 2015, but national taxes were national taxes.

On October 26, 2015, the Administrator decided to dismiss the plaintiff's request for examination.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired a sale right by jointly investing 50% with the delinquent taxpayer, but on December 6, 2010

From the above sales right, a delinquent taxpayer’s share in the real estate was acquired. On December 21, 2010, a sales contract for the real estate in the name of a delinquent was concluded, and the remaining sales price was fully paid by June 21, 201, excluding loans of KRW 80,000. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of a delinquent taxpayer on June 24, 201 due to restrictions on resale under the Housing Act. The Plaintiff prepared a sales contract as of November 5, 201 in form to register the ownership transfer of the real estate in the name of a delinquent taxpayer on November 24, 201, and filed a lawsuit against the delinquent taxpayer on November 5, 201, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate in the name of the Plaintiff on November 20, 2013 according to the final judgment.

As such, the actual owner of the instant real estate at the time of the instant seizure disposition is the Plaintiff.

quation of seizure of the instant real property under Article 53(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act

However, the Defendant refused to cancel the attachment of the instant real estate, which led to the refusal of the cancellation of attachment.

The rejection disposition shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Article 50 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "a third party who intends to claim ownership of the attached property and request its return shall submit evidentiary documents to the head of a tax office no later than five days prior to the sale thereof." Article 53 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "if a third party falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of a tax office must release the seizure," and subparagraph 3 provides that "if the third party's assertion of ownership under Article 50 is deemed to exist, the third party's assertion of ownership shall be brought against the delinquent taxpayer in a lawsuit on the ownership, and the third party proves that he/she has won the lawsuit." All of the above provisions provide that if the third party's assertion that the attached property is owned by the third party at the time of the seizure or the fact that the property is owned by the third party becomes final and conclusive in civil procedure, if the property at the time of the seizure disposition by the head of a tax office does not belong to the third party's ownership, it shall not constitute the requirements for the cancellation of the attachment (see, e. 196Nu.3.

2) According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the delinquent taxpayer from ○○ Corporation on December 21, 2010

The instant real estate was sold in KRW 377,975,00, and the delinquent taxpayer on June 24, 201

Recognition of the completion of the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on December 21, 2010 as to movable property

As such, the real estate of this case is subject to the disposition of seizure of this case on October 4, 201, which was the date of the disposition of seizure of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff acquired the right to sell the real estate of this case from the delinquent taxpayer and sold the sale price.

Even if most of them were actually borne, such circumstance alone alone is subject to the seizure disposition of this case.

The plaintiff's assertion of ownership other than the title holder of the registration of ownership of the real estate of this case

It is difficult to see that there is good reason.

3) In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9, the Plaintiff and the delinquent taxpayer on November 5, 201

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of the instant real estate in KRW 377,975,00, and the Plaintiff on June 28, 2013

The Seoul ○ District Court rendered a judgment (Seoul ○○ District Court 2013Da35031, hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case") on November 5, 201 that the delinquent taxpayer filed a lawsuit against the delinquent taxpayer to file a claim for ownership transfer registration, and that the Seoul ○ District Court rendered a judgment (Seoul ○○ District Court 2013Da35031, hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case"), and that the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive on September 24, 2013. According to the above facts, the judgment of this case merely ordered the delinquent taxpayer to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration in the future of the plaintiff on the grounds that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the delinquent taxpayer with respect to the real estate of this case is null and void, or not ordered the plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the recovery of real name in the future.

Therefore, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against a delinquent taxpayer after the attachment disposition of this case

under the judgment of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate of this case.

Even if such circumstance alone is the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant real estate at the time of the instant attachment disposition.

It cannot be said that the facts have become final and conclusive by civil action.

4) If so, pursuant to Article 53 (1) 2 or 3 of the National Tax Collection Act, the defendant

Since there is no obligation to revoke the seizure of real estate, the rejection disposition of this case is proper.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition with respect to the burden of charge.