If a third party enters into a lawsuit for the transfer of ownership against a delinquent taxpayer after the attachment disposition and completes the transfer of ownership under his/her own name, the provisional cancellation of attachment;

The purpose of Article 53 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act is to release the attachment because it is illegal since the execution of the attachment deeming the attached property to be owned by a third party at the time of the attachment is illegal, in case where the attachment becomes final and conclusive as a result of civil litigation, the attachment should be cancelled, even if the third party filed a lawsuit against the delinquent taxpayer for the transfer registration of ownership and received the judgment in favor of the third party based on the judgment, even though the attached property does not belong to the third party at the time of the attachment, it does not constitute the requirements for the cancellation of attachment.

Article 53 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu332 Delivered on August 23, 1983

Plaintiff

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu1189 delivered on June 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 53 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act, when a third party proves the fact that he/she won a lawsuit on ownership against a delinquent taxpayer and has won a favorable judgment, the head of a tax office shall release the seizure. However, this purport is that the execution of the seizure should be cancelled because it is illegal if the property attached as a result of a civil lawsuit becomes the ownership of a third party at the time of seizure, which is regarded as the ownership of the delinquent taxpayer. Thus, as in the case of this case, even if the plaintiff won a lawsuit against the delinquent taxpayer after the disposition of seizure, and won the lawsuit against the delinquent taxpayer, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was made, the seized property does not belong to the plaintiff at the time of seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu32 delivered on August 23, 1983). The court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as a theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law as to the part of the land in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)