After the trust under the Trust Act is made, seizure of trust property based on delinquent taxes of the truster shall be null and void.

After the trust under the Trust Act is made pursuant to the trust contract, the attachment of a deposit claim, which is a trust property under the name of the trustee, is a seizure against a third party's property, which is not a taxpayer, and the defect is significant and apparent and void.

1. It is confirmed that a seizure disposition that the Defendant sent to each deposit account on May 27, 2008 is null and void.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of being entrusted with real estate, and is a corporation ABBB on February 18, 2003 (BBBB at the time of mutual stock company).

With the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), the non-party company entered into a real estate security trust agreement with the non-party company company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") and the DDD savings bank (hereinafter referred to as the "the above savings bank of this case") under which the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "the non-party company, the non-party company, the financial institution, the non-party company, the GH General Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "HH General Construction" of the company, the non-party company, the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as the "the non-party company"), the non-party company, the non-party company, the financial institution, the GH General Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "HH General Construction" of the company; hereinafter referred to as the "the non-party company") to carry out the above 58-3, 6, 7, and 8 business of selling the company's real estate by way of the modification of the ownership trust agreement with the non-party company.

C. Around October 2006, the Plaintiff Company entered into a trust agreement for disposal of real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “trust agreement of this case”) with the Nonparty Company as a truster, the Plaintiff Company as the trustee, and with respect to the instant officetel, the first beneficiary (the amount of profit limit onCC Savings Bank, which is the first beneficiary, the first beneficiary) up to the fifth order including each savings bank of this case, to allow the Plaintiff Company to preferentially benefit from the instant officetel (hereinafter referred to as “the trust agreement of this case”), with the content that the first beneficiary may preferentially benefit from the instant officetel (31,400,000,000) (hereinafter referred to as “the trust agreement of this case”). The relevant provisions of the contract of this case

The same shall apply).

D. On October 12, 2006, the non-party company transferred ownership to the plaintiff company on the ground of the trust based on the above agency modification contract and trust contract.

E. On May 31, 2007, the instant company merged the non-party company with another company.

F. After the merger, the non-party company or the company of this case sold each of the sections of the instant officetels, and the sale price was deposited in each deposit account in the separate sheet established by the plaintiff company.

G. Meanwhile, the instant company submitted the 1st VAT declaration in 2006, but did not pay the relevant taxes, and did not pay the value-added tax for which tax liability was incurred thereafter.

H. On April 22, 2008, the Defendant requested for the payment of the value-added tax that occurred until December 31, 2007 and the ordinary payment of the value-added tax that occurred during the 11st term period of 2008, which occurred from the disposition of the instant officetel against the Plaintiff Company’s company on April 22, 2008.

I. On May 27, 2008, when the company of this case did not pay value-added tax despite the above request, the defendant seized each deposit claim (hereinafter "the deposit claim of this case") on each deposit account in the separate sheet in the name of the plaintiff company based on the following delinquent tax amount (hereinafter "the delinquent tax amount of this case") against the company of this case on May 27, 2008 (hereinafter "disposition of this case").

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 7 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff company's assertion

Since trust property belongs to a trustee, the instant deposit claim is not the property of the Plaintiff Company, which is not the property of the Plaintiff Company, but the property of the Plaintiff Company, and unless the trust is seized before the execution of the trust under the Trust Act, it cannot be deemed as the “right arising from the cause before the trust” under Article 21(1) of the Trust Act. Therefore, the instant disposition is subject to the property of a third party, which is not the taxpayer, and its contents cannot be legally realized, and thus is null and void.

2) The defendant's assertion

"The trust deed concerning the trust of the instant officetel is completed with the approval seal affixed on October 18, 2006 and the registration of the trust is completed on the following day. Since the statutory due date of the value-added tax on January 25, 2006 (hereinafter "value-added tax of this case") among the delinquent taxes of this case was July 25, 2006, the total delinquent amount of 853,662,690 won was incurred before the conclusion of the trust contract and it is possible to seize the trust property pursuant to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act and the proviso of Article 21 of the Trust Act, the disposition of this case is legitimate."

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

C. Determination

1) The subject to whom the instant deposit claim belongs

A) A trust under the Trust Act refers to a legal relationship in which a truster transfers a specific property right to a trustee, or takes other measures, and a trustee manages and disposes of such property right for a certain person’s interest or for a specific purpose, based on a special fiduciary relationship between a truster and a trustee. In cases where a property right is transferred to a trustee under a trust agreement, such trust property is absolutely transferred to the trustee, and the property right is not reserved against the truster in an internal relationship with the truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da54276, Mar. 13, 2008).

B) According to the above facts and Article 4 of the trust agreement of this case, the disposal price of the officetel of this case belongs to the trust property as the original of the trust. On the other hand, whether the person who is the beneficiary of the right to trust property under the Trust Act is the beneficiary of the trust property under the Trust Act, and whether the business operator and the taxpayer of value-added tax under the Value-Added Tax Act are in charge of the trust business under the Trust Act are different criteria for judgment. In full view of the above legal principles of the trust and the contents of the trust agreement of this case, and the relevant provisions of the Trust Act, the sales price of the officetel of this case belongs to the trust property under the trust agreement of this case, and the deposit claim of this case where the above sales price is deposited belongs to the trust property. Thus

2) Whether the Defendant can enforce a compulsory execution of the instant deposit claim, which is a trust property, based on the instant delinquent tax amount

A) Considering the provisions of Article 24(1) of the National Tax Number Act stipulating the requirements for seizure as a disposition on default, the disposition of seizure against a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, is limited to the taxpayer’s property. As such, the disposition of seizure against a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, cannot be legally realized (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct. 15, 1996). If a trust relationship is established between the parties by transferring the ownership of real property to a trustee and the parties pursuant to the Trust Act, unlike the simple title trust, the trust property cannot be deemed as the truster’s property even after the trust is reverted to the trustee, and the main sentence of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act does not allow compulsory execution or auction against the trustee’s own property and the truster’s property.

The disposition of this case is a seizure disposition of this case's deposit claim, which is the trust property of the name of the plaintiff company, the trustee, based on the delinquent tax against the company of this case after the trust under the Trust Act was made in accordance with the contract of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is a seizure for the property of a third party, which is not the taxpayer, and its defect is significant and obvious.

It is void as a matter of course.

B) Whether the instant default tax constitutes “the right arising from the cause before the trust” under the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act

On the other hand, Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act provides that a compulsory execution or auction may not be conducted against the trust property, and it is exceptionally permitted only in the case of ‘the right arising before the trust' or ‘the right arising from the process of the trust business'. In this context, ‘the right arising before the trust' means the case where the truster has already the right to enforce compulsory execution or auction against the trust property before the trust, as in the case where the truster has established a mortgage, etc. or has entrusted the real estate attached upon an executory claim. In light of the above facts acknowledged earlier, the defendant did not seize the instant officetel based on the delayed tax payment such as the value-added tax, etc. before the trust is made under the Trust Act. Thus, the delinquent tax of this case cannot be deemed as falling under ‘the right arising from the cause before the trust' under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act, and it is not permitted to seize the claim of this case based on the delinquent tax of this case.

3) Conclusion

Therefore, the attachment disposition of this case, which seized the deposit claim of this case, which is a trust property under the name of the plaintiff company, based on the delinquent tax against the company of this case, which is the truster after the trust under the trust contract of this case was made under the trust law, is a seizure against a third party's property, which is not the taxpayer, and the defect is serious and obvious and thus null and void.

3. Conclusion

claim of the company shall be accepted on the basis of its reasoning.