Gwangju District Court 201Guhap3548 (2.09 December 2012)

early 2010 Mine2474 ( October 19, 2010)

Dismissal as there is no legal interest in seeking the invalidation of the attachment disposition by cancelling the attachment disposition after filing a lawsuit.

Since it is recognized that the attachment disposition for trust real estate has been entirely cancelled, it is illegal as there is no legal interest to seek confirmation of invalidation of the attachment disposition.

2012Nu408 Nullification of attachment disposition

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Seogju Tax Office

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011Guhap3548 Decided February 9, 2012

June 14, 2012

June 28, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On May 3, 2010, the Defendant confirmed that each attachment disposition against each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and each attachment disposition against each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 on June 8, 2011 is invalid.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasons stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case, which seized the instant trusted property, which is the Plaintiff’s entrusted property, based on each of the instant taxation claims against XX, is subject to the property of a third party who is not a taxpayer, and thus, violates Article 24(1) of the National Tax Collection Act that sets the subject of seizure as taxpayer’s property, Article 21(1) of the Trust Act that prohibits compulsory execution against trust property, and its defect is significant and obvious.

B. The defendant's main defense

On June 4, 2012, the Defendant asserts that the instant suit is unlawful, since each of the instant seizure dispositions against the instant trusted real estate was revoked.

C. Determination

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s argument, the following facts are examined as to the Defendant’s main defense: (a) the Defendant’s release of all of the instant seizure dispositions against the instant trusted on June 4, 2012, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed; (b) the Plaintiff had no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the invalidation of the instant seizure disposition; (c) therefore, the instant lawsuit is all unlawful; and (d) the Defendant’s main defense of safety is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed as it is unfair. However, the “right arising in the course of performing the trust affairs” provided for in the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act shall include only the right to the trustee as the debtor, and the attachment disposition of this case shall be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du1006, Apr. 13, 201). In light of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, the litigation cost of this case shall be fully borne by the defendant pursuant to this decision. It is so decided as per Disposition.