Seoul High Court 2010Nu37188 (2011.04.01)

Disposition of seizure on the property of a third party who is not a taxpayer shall be null and void as it is impossible to legally realize the contents of such disposition.

The disposition of this case which seized trust property owned by the plaintiff, a third party based on the above company's claim, such as value added tax, on the ground that the truster's claim against BBB cannot be seen as a claim against BBB, which is the truster, can not be seen as a claim for the above company, shall not be subject

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011Du8734 Nullification of attachment disposition

AA real estate trust company

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu37188 Decided April 1, 2011

April 12, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed). 1. Trust under the Trust Act provides that a truster shall manage and dispose of the property right for the purpose of trust by transferring a specific property right to a trustee or taking any other disposition (Article 1(2) of the Trust Act). Thus, if the trustee completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future, the ownership transfer inside and outside the trust shall be completely transferred to the trustee, and ownership shall not be reserved to the truster in the internal relationship with the truster (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da70460, Apr. 12, 2002; 2005Da9685, Sept. 7, 2007). 1. Trust Act provides that a trustee shall not be subject to compulsory execution or auction with respect to the trust property under Article 21(1)5 of the Trust Act, and it shall not be subject to compulsory execution or auction with respect to the trust property under the proviso of Article 19(2)14) of the Trust Act.

2. After citing the judgment of the first instance court, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, it presumed that the "right to process the trust affairs" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act means the claim arising from the trustee's ordinary business activities, such as the management or disposal of trust property, and on the ground that the claim related to the disposition of this case, such as value-added tax, against BBB, cannot be seen as a claim against BBB, which is the truster, cannot be seen as a claim against BB, and thus, the disposition of this case, which seized the trust property owned by the plaintiff as a third party based on the claim of value-added tax against the above company, cannot be legally realized. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the disposition

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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.