Whether the mortgagee is a party to seek revocation of the seizure disposition made by the tax authority on the real estate;

Administrative litigation is a profit to be instituted only by a person who has a direct and specific interest in law due to an administrative disposition, and only by a person who has a de facto and indirect relationship with a taxpayer shall be deemed to have no profit to be brought, and where a tax authority has issued a seizure disposition on a real estate owned by a taxpayer, the mortgagee of such real estate shall have a de facto and indirect interest, and therefore, it is not a party to seek cancellation of the seizure disposition,

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Jeju Bank, Inc.

The head of North Daegu Tax Office and one other

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In order to collect 296,113,644 won of value-added tax and 29,611,364 won of value-added tax from the non-party on April 29, 1982, the head of the tax office in North Korea, North Korea, the head of the tax office in the same year, for the collection of 21,853,94 won of value-added tax from the above non-party on May 3 of the same year and 2,185,39 won of value-added tax from the above non-party on May 3 of the same year, each disposition of seizure on the real estate stated in the attached list owned by the above non-party is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The plaintiff's legal representative imposed and notified the national tax stated in the list of the non-party's shares to the non-party Ansan Industrial Co., Ltd., but the property of the non-party company was insufficient to cover the above national tax, additional dues, and disposition fee for arrears. The non-party who is the shareholder of the above company is an oligopolistic shareholder who owns not less than 51 percent of the above company's shares as of the date when the liability for national tax payment was established, and designated the non-party as the secondary taxpayer for the above national tax, and the disposition imposing the above national tax. The non-party did not pay it. The above non-party owned only 50 percent of the company's shares and owned not less than 51 percent of the company's shares. Thus, it is unlawful to seize the above taxation disposition to the non-party, and the plaintiff asserted that the attachment disposition was revoked as an interested party of the non-party Industrial Co., Ltd. as of November 18, 1981.

However, prior to its judgment, the administrative litigation only has the interest to file a lawsuit, which is a person having a direct and specific interest in law, due to an administrative disposition, but it shall be deemed that there is no interest to file a lawsuit. In this case, even according to the plaintiff's principal of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is merely a monetary claimant against the non-party, who is merely a non-party-owned non-party, and thus has a real and indirect interest in the second taxpayer's designation of the non-party and the seizure disposition based on the taxation disposition. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is a party entitled to file a claim for revocation of the above seizure disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Nu48 delivered on March 10, 1981, see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu48)

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is not necessary to determine further, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Lee-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)