The third party's claim for ownership shall not be deemed to constitute a case where reasonable grounds exist.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that a registration of ownership has been made arbitrarily, it cannot be deemed that the assertion of ownership by a third party under Article 53 (1) 2 of the National Tax Collection Act is a case where there is a considerable reason.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release from Attachment)

2012Guhap5993 Revocation of Disposition rejecting an application to cancel the attachment of real estate

west ○

개가지

2014.03.07

2014.25

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s refusal to cancel the attachment on October 5, 2012 to the Plaintiff on the real estate stated in the attached list, which the Defendant reported to the Plaintiff.

Sector shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Seocho owns 1/2 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building 1”), and the Plaintiff’s grandchildren and KimB are the Plaintiff’s external villages.

"A. Among the buildings in this case, on August 27, 2003, the transfer registration of shares was made under the name of KimB on July 20, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "transfer registration of ownership"), and thereafter on September 22, 2003, the Government of the Republic of Korea died on September 22, 2003." As to the shares of the above KimB, ① the maximum debt amount of KRW 450 million on October 7, 2003, the debtor Kim BB, the mutual savings bank in Korea, and ② the establishment registration of the lower priority right and the transfer registration of shares of KimB on August 4, 2006, under the name of the Government of the △△△△△ on August 27, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, a share of KRW 207.27.27.

(d) On December 22, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the title transfer registration of this case was null and void due to a dispute between 1 and 20, and that the Plaintiff received shares in the building of this case from 209, Busan District Court No. 2009No. 97419, on August 19, 209, against 1/4 shares held by 1/10 of 209, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against 1/10 of 1/4 shares at the time of 200, and the above court made a lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration of 20, 100, 200, 100, 2000, 100, 200, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

G. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 27, 2012, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 4, 2012, but was dismissed on May 2, 2013.

[In the absence of dispute with recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 through 9, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (including the number of each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The title of the instant building was bequeathed to the Plaintiff. The title transfer registration of the instant building was made arbitrarily on the ground that the title of the instant building was deteriorated by the KimB, who was an administrator of the instant building, using his certificate of his personal seal impression issued by the Western, and the Plaintiff received a decision of recommending settlement with the same content as the Plaintiff’s claim by filing a lawsuit against KimB, Ssung, and Korean mutual savings banks seeking the registration of ownership transfer and the cancellation of the registration of mortgage creation. Thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a case where “a favorable judgment, which is the grounds for cancellation of seizure under Article 53(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act.”

2) Even if the decision of recommending reconciliation does not constitute a favorable judgment, the decision of recommending reconciliation was rendered on the premise that the KimB’s assertion that the shares in the instant building were donated by the Western is not acceptable, so it constitutes “where the third party’s assertion of ownership, which is the grounds for revoking seizure under Article 53(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act, is deemed to have considerable grounds,” and the registration of seizure of this case must be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

【National Tax Collection Act

Article 50 (Third Party Claim on Ownership)

The third person who intends to claim ownership of the attached property and request its return shall submit those documents proving the ownership to the director of the tax office at least five days prior to its sale.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release from Attachment)

(1) The head of a tax office shall immediately release the attachment in any of the following cases:

2. If the justification for the third person's claim on the ownership under Article 50 is deemed reasonable;

3. If the third person proves that he/she has obtained a favorable judgment of the court in the lawsuit on the ownership against the defaulted taxpayer.

C. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

Article 53 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act clearly provides that the decision of recommending reconciliation is difficult to be deemed to be that the decision of recommending reconciliation is made, and (2) Article 53 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the seized property was owned by a third party at the time of seizure, if it is revealed by the judgment of the judicial branch in the lawsuit on ownership, it appears that the purpose of correcting seizure conducted without any cause of the property of a third party, not the delinquent taxpayer, is to be made. (3) The decision of recommending reconciliation is made without any judicial judgment on the propriety of the claim. (4) Since the concession of both parties is an inherent factor in the final resolution of the dispute, even if the decision of recommending reconciliation is made, it is difficult to see that the seized property was owned by a third party at the time of seizure. In full view of the above, Article 53 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act does not constitute the plaintiff's allegation in this part of the judgment.

2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

A) Where a registration has been completed on any real estate, it shall be presumed that it has been completed lawfully in its cause and procedure unless there are any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). The registration of real estate is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or appearance that led to such disclosure. Thus, in acquiring real estate from the former owner, the former owner asserts that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the former owner in acquiring the real estate for any other reason without following the grounds for registration entered in the register, and it cannot be said that the burden of presumption of such registration has been broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da40651, Sept. 29, 2005; 95Da42980, Feb. 27, 1996).

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2, 13, and 14 as to the instant case and the purport of the entire arguments as to the evidence evidence Nos. 2, 13, and 14 as to the instant case, the Seocho-A prepared a testamentary document stating that on July 13, 199, a notary public obtained on July 13, 199 the certificate of Busan East-dong Law Office 】 (the instant building and Busan-dong x x 175.2m2m2, Dong-dong x 000m2, 226.1m26m2, 000 and 00-00m2 and 43m2m2 to the Plaintiff (the document submitted as evidence No. 2) and written on the original copy of the testamentary document submitted as evidence No. 1, but it appears that the testimony of 200m3m2 and 00m3m3m2, which were the authentic copy of the court’s new examination process.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that KimB voluntarily completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case by only the evidence presented by the Plaintiff and the fact that KimB had completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) In full view of the aforementioned evidence evidence Gap evidence Nos. 12 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the plaintiff's name on the ground of legacy on September 22, 2003, as well as the building of this case with respect to the land share of 00-0,000,000 by Dong Jung-gu x 1 x KimB on August 27, 2003. The plaintiff is recognized to have completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of legacy on December 14, 2004 only for the land of 0-000.

(2) In order to cancel the registration of seizure on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of a delinquent taxpayer, which was the basis of the registration of seizure, is null and void, the method of filing a lawsuit on ownership against the delinquent taxpayer (Article 53(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act) or filing a civil lawsuit against the State by asserting ownership in the relevant district tax office (Article 53(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act), or directly filing an application for cancellation of attachment, or demanding a declaration of consent to cancel the registration of transfer in the name of the delinquent taxpayer. In the case of filing a civil lawsuit, the issue of whether a third party who has an interest in the registration under Article 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act bears an obligation to accept the registration of cancellation shall be determined by the substantive law in relation to the person holding the right to the registration of cancellation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da25510, Jul. 24, 2008).

(3) There is no direct evidence to prove that the transaction-related documents on July 20, 203, which were written as an application for registration of ownership transfer or as a ground for registration, were forged without the intention of the Western.

(4) In addition, in the case of the Busan District Court 2009Kadan97419, KimB did not have been punished for the charge of forging relevant documents related to the registration of ownership transfer, and in the case of the Busan District Court 2009Kadan97419, KimB actively argued that the share of the building was donated as compensation for faithfully performing the duties of care and custodian of the Western and received ownership transfer from AB (On the other hand, in the case of the Busan District Court 201Kadan10893, the Savings Bank submitted a written response to the effect that the secured obligation of the right to collateral

(5) Although the above assertion by KimB is somewhat smaller than the grounds for the registration of the transfer of ownership in this case, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of registration was broken due to such circumstance.

(6) The Plaintiff was aware of the fact of testamentary gift of the instant building by attending the process of drawing up the authentic will of the Western, and was actually aware of the fact of testamentary gift of the instant building 】 Busan Jung-gu 】 】 1 on December 14, 2004, even though the ownership transfer was completed on the ground of testamentary gift on August 27, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration only for the portion of the instant building on August 19, 2009, where ownership transfer was made under the name of KimB on August 27, 2003 】 Dong 1 x Dong 1 did not take measures for long-term recovery of ownership as to the portion of land x 0-000,000.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s application for the cancellation of the instant attachment registration cannot be deemed to constitute “a case where there is a considerable reason to claim the ownership of a third party” under Article 53(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s application is without merit.”

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.