Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-70434 ( November 30, 2017)

Whether a seizure disposition against title trust shares constitutes a seizure disposition against a third party's property, and thus, constitutes a valid and void disposition.

In order to claim that the name of the shareholder is trusted and that there is a separate shareholder, the person claiming the title trust relationship should prove the fact of borrowing the name, and the seizure disposition is a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act, which goes through the prior trial procedure as stipulated in Article 56(2) of the Framework Act

Article 24 [Attachment] of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Nu8871 Revocation of attachment disposition

AA

CC director of the tax office

November 30, 2017

2018.19

2018.05.31

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

In the first place, on April 25, 2017, the attachment disposition against the property listed in the separate sheet by the defendant is invalid. In the second place, the attachment disposition is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The attachment disposition in the purport of the claim shall be confirmed to be invalid.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

The court of first instance dismissed the main claim and rejected the conjunctive claim, and the plaintiff filed an appeal only for the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, the part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be excluded from the object of the judgment of this court.

2. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is that the part of "No. 2 through 6" of 6 lines at the bottom of the fourth ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the main claim among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning "Nos. 2 through 6, 8 through 10". Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Since the part concerning the main claim in the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.