Where the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription is made after seizure under the National Tax Collection Act on the real estate owned by the delinquent taxpayer whose acquisition by prescription has already expired, whether the retroactive effect of the acquisition by prescription is also recognized as to the execution creditor (negative), and whether the prohibition of disposition by prescription after seizure is effective on the third acquisitor who has completed the registration of ownership transfer by prescription (affirmative)

The attachment as a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act shall be subject to taxpayer's property, and if the property is registered, whether it belongs to taxpayer's property shall be determined by the validity of registration. Even if the tax authority seizes the real estate for which the period of prescription for the acquisition of the real estate has already expired 20 years by the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff was not registered until that time, it cannot be asserted against the third party's property. Even if the validity of the acquisition of the right due to the acquisition by prescription is retroactive to the commencement of possession after the seizure, the retroactive effect is not acknowledged in relation to the tax authority that is the third party. In addition, the so-called prohibition on disposal in the attachment is relatively effective in relation to the execution creditor, and the third acquisitor cannot oppose the execution creditor, so even if the Plaintiff completed the registration on the ownership transfer from the delinquent taxpayer after the attachment, it cannot be asserted against the execution creditor.

Articles 45 and 47 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Credit South (Law Firm Pacific, Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu10434 delivered on May 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the real estate of this case was registered as the owner of the largest profit-making, and that the plaintiff's new name was purchased on February 24, 1958, and paid in full the price, and possessed and managed it from that time on November 9, 1980 without completing the registration of transfer, and that the plaintiff's disposal of this case was lawful by the defendant on December 15, 1988, when the plaintiff had continuously occupied and managed the above real estate on October 10, 1960 on the ground that the transfer of ownership was completed on July 14, 1987, when the real estate of this case was registered as the owner of the largest profit-making, and even if the new name was the owner of the real estate of this case after the expiration of the statute of limitations from the acquisition of the real estate of this case on July 28, 198, when it was registered under the name of the above largest profit-making.

The attachment as a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act must be subject to taxpayer's property, and in case where the property subject to the attachment is a real estate registered, whether it belongs to taxpayer's ownership should be determined by the validity of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu506, Apr. 24, 1984; 82Nu61, Jul. 10, 1984; 82Nu61, Apr. 10, 1984). As determined by the court below, even if the period of prescription for the acquisition of real estate of this case had already expired at the time of the seizure of the real estate of this case, if the plaintiff failed to make a registration until that time, the plaintiff cannot claim ownership against the third party on the ground of the prescriptive acquisition. After the attachment, even if the plaintiff retroactives the acquisition of right due to the acquisition by prescription after the registration of ownership transfer and the acquisition by prescription, the retroactive effect is not acknowledged in relation to the defendant as the third party. Therefore, the judgment below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition by prescription.

In addition, since the prohibition of disposal of a delinquent taxpayer's specific property was reached in a seizure that prohibits the disposal of the delinquent taxpayer's specific property, the effect of the prohibition of disposal is relatively accrued in relation to the execution creditor, and the execution creditor can claim the effect of the seizure against the third acquisitor, and the third acquisitor cannot set up against the execution creditor. However, even if the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by prescription after the seizure of this case, it cannot set up against the execution creditor, the execution creditor cannot set up against the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on

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 on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)