(a) Claims for revocation of a seizure disposition for the collection of national taxes, which is sought based on invalidity confirmation, and benefits of confirmation;

B. Whether a title truster’s interest in filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a seizure disposition, where the trustee’s creditor attached the claim for registration of transfer of the real estate purchased through title trust

A. In order to seek revocation of the attachment disposition with respect to the attachment disposition taken by the defendant (the director of the regional tax office) in order to collect delinquent national taxes, the plaintiff has the legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity due to the infringement of his/her rights due to the attachment disposition.

B. If the defendant seizes the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the non-party corporation as the result of the title trust purchase, even if the right to claim for the registration of transfer is the right to the plaintiff, which actually belongs to the plaintiff, as the result of the title trust, the defendant's seizure of claim cannot affect the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff is bound by the nature of the seizure of claim, and the plaintiff can still claim his claim and exercise his right against the non-party corporation regardless of the defendant's seizure disposition, and there is no legal interest to seek the confirmation of invalidity since there is no legal violation of rights.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Ansan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu698 delivered on September 8, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the real estate in the judgment of the court below is part of the apartment house site created by the non-party Industrial Base Development Corporation as part of the non-party industrial complex development project, and the plaintiff borrowed and purchased the real estate in the name of the non-party Jung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. which is the non-party company in the above semi-monthly industrial complex. The defendant seized it to collect the delinquent national tax of the non-party company, and requested the competent registry to attach it to collect the delinquent national tax of the non-party company, but the registration was not yet transferred from the above construction to the non-party company. According to the above facts, the non-party company who purchased the real estate in this case from the non-party corporation is the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff's right to claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the non-party corporation is illegal as it is against the law of seizing the plaintiff's right to claim in order to collect delinquent national tax of the non-party company, and the effect of the seizure procedure occurs when the debtor was notified under Article 42 (1) of National Tax Collection Act.

In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, it is clear that the lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the attachment disposition in the sense that, although the instant real estate attachment disposition did not take effect as a real estate attachment, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate attachment disposition is effective as a attachment against Nonparty Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the taxpayer of the said real estate, even though it was effective as a attachment of the claim for ownership transfer registration owned by the non-party Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., for the industrial base development corporation.

However, in order for the plaintiff to seek the revocation of the attachment disposition to the meaning of seeking the invalidity confirmation prior to the original judgment as to whether the attachment disposition of the defendant was null and void, there should be legal interests to seek the invalidity confirmation as to the plaintiff's infringement due to the attachment disposition. Even according to the facts established by the court below and the records, the defendant's right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the non-party industrial base construction on the original real estate belongs to the non-party company, the non-party company, and seizure of the plaintiff's right as a disposition for arrears against the above non-party company, and it is clear that the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer registration is not attached to the plaintiff for the same reason as the original judgment. Thus, even if the plaintiff's right to claim the transfer registration belongs to the plaintiff for the same reason as the original judgment, it is reasonable in view of the nature of the attachment disposition, and the plaintiff's claim can still be claimed as his own right despite the defendant's attachment disposition, and therefore there is no legal interest to seek the invalidity confirmation.

The court below's finding that the plaintiff accepted the claim seeking revocation under the premise that there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the attachment disposition of this case, does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the attachment of claims, thereby not examining whether there is a benefit in the lawsuit. Therefore, the court below's judgment cannot be reversed in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)