Case of rejection of a lawsuit seeking nullification of the attachment of real estate

A person who has acquired a right to the seized real estate after the registration of seizure based on the disposition of national tax in arrears has a de facto and indirect interest in the above seizure disposition, and thus is not eligible to seek the revocation of the seizure disposition or nullification thereof.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The instant lawsuit is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

갑 1,2호증, 갑 5호증의1,2, 갑 6호증, 을 1 내지 7호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고는 소외 주식회사 ㅇㅇ교역이 1989. 3. 28. 자금경색으로 폐업상태에 이르게 되자 장래 확정될 부가가치세와 법인세 등 국세채권의 보전을 위하여 1989. 3. 31. 위 소외회사 소유의 별지목록기재 이 사건 건물을 압류처분하고 같은 해 4. 4. 그 압류등기를 마친 사실, 원고는 그 후 위 소외 회사로부터 이 사건 건물을 매수하고, 같은 해 5. 30. 위 건물에 관하여 원고명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실, 피고는 1989. 7. 13. 위 소외회사에 대하여 부가가치세 금76,216,210원과 법인세 금9,152,750원을 확정, 고지하였으나 위 소외회사가 이를 체납하자 1989. 9. 21. 소외 성업공사에게 위 건물의 공매대행을 의뢰한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

The plaintiff did not pay the delinquent tax to the non-party company at the time of the above attachment, and there was no reason to collect the delinquent tax after the transfer of ownership was made in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the building in this case, so the above attachment disposition became null and void upon the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, and the public sale disposition, which is in progress, was also unlawful, and seek confirmation of the invalidation of the above attachment disposition and nullification of the

On the other hand, a person who acquired a right to the seized real estate after the registration of seizure based on the disposition of national tax arrears was actually and indirectly interested in the above seizure disposition, and thus there is no standing to sue to seek the revocation or nullification of the seizure disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5706, Oct. 16, 190; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5706, Oct. 16, 1990; in this case, there is no reason different from the above precedents or interpretation in the case of the preservation seizure before national tax arrears, and there is no reason different from the above cases). Accordingly, the plaintiff is not eligible to seek the confirmation of invalidation of the seizure disposition of this case, and therefore, it is not appropriate to seek the confirmation of invalidity as to the public sale disposition based on the above seizure disposition.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is not necessary to determine the merits, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.