A person who takes over or donated a seized real estate shall not be eligible to assert the invalidity of a seizure disposition.

A person who has acquired real estate registered as attachment and completed the registration of ownership transfer shall not have a real and indirect interest in the attachment disposition or the public auction disposition under the National Tax Collection Act, which is based thereon, and shall not have a direct and specific interest in law, and therefore there is no standing to seek the invalidation of such attachment disposition or public auction disposition or the invalidation thereof.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

피고가 2005. 2. 23. 서울 ◆◆구 ◇◇동 1006-80 대 490.6㎡에 대하여 한 압류처분은 무효임을 확인한다.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Do (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased on November 1, 1999") established on February 7, 1962 by the deceased.

B. The defendant's disposition

(1) The imposition disposition of inheritance tax (hereinafter referred to as "tax disposition of this case") was conducted on January 3, 2005

(가) 상속인들 : 이★★ 및 김○○(망인이 1981. 9. 10. 각 입양한 자), 전●● 및 ◎◎◎씨담송공파종친회(이하 '소외 종친회')(각 상속재산 수유자)

(나) 상속재산 : 망인 소유의 서울 ◆◆구 ◇◇동 1006-80 대 490.6㎡(이하 '이 사건 부동산') 등

(c) Inheritance tax amount;

(2) Attachment disposition of the instant real property (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”)

(A) Date of disposal: February 23, 2005

(B) Grounds: Attachment by co-inheritors of the instant real estate owned by Non-party clan-friendly association, a joint and several taxpayer, of the amount of the inheritance tax;

C. Possession of the instant real estate

(a) Transfer of ownership;

(A) Deceased: Registration on October 15, 1976 (the cause for the division of common property on October 11, 1976)

(B) Non-party relatives' association: Registration on April 11, 2001 (the reason for the legacy of June 13, 1994 by the deceased)

(C) Plaintiff: Registration on July 4, 2007 (the ground for the gift made on March 6, 2000 by the non-party-friendly council)

(2) Registration of a disposal-prohibited enterprise;

(A) Ansan-si: Registration on March 28, 2000 (to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of the family council in the case of the non-party family council)

(다) 이★★, 김○○ : 2001. 5. 14. 등기(소외 종친회에 대한 법정상속분에 관한 이전등기청구권 보전)

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 4, each entry of Eul 10 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

(1) The plaintiff's principal

(A) The instant taxation disposition, including the value of the inherited property, is unlawful, in the absence of neither the inherited property nor the economic value of the deceased. The instant attachment disposition based on which it was based is null and void.

As the deceased contributed to the real estate in the family case around 1962 and thereafter established the plaintiff, it is difficult to die, it is donated to the plaintiff, so the real estate in this case is not inherited property of the deceased.

O The real estate of this case is subject to the maintenance of the extra-class family-friendly deceaseds who have been bequeathed.

Since the instant real estate was donated to the Plaintiff, it constitutes a case where the inherited property stipulated in Article 16(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was contributed to public service, it is not included in the taxable

O The economic value of the instant real estate is almost little.

(B) The attachment disposition on real estate owned by another is null and void.

O The plaintiff was donated the real estate of this case by the non-party clan clan on March 6, 2000, and therefore the plaintiff is the owner of the property.

O The Defendant issued a seizure disposition on the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the delinquency in inheritance tax by Nonparty 2.

(2) Defendant’s principal

Since the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate after the instant attachment disposition, there is no legal interest to dispute the instant attachment disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Legal principles

In cases where the tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes, the person who transferred the real estate that became the registration of attachment and completed the registration of ownership transfer after transfer shall have the real and indirect interest in the above attachment disposition or the public sale disposition under the National Tax Collection Act based on it, and shall not have any legal and direct interest, and thus, there is no standing to seek the invalidation of the attachment disposition or public sale disposition and to seek the invalidity thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu524, Feb. 8, 1985; 89Nu5706, Oct. 16, 190).

(2) Determination

(A) The time when the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant real estate

The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate by completing the registration of transfer of ownership on July 4, 2007, which was after the instant attachment disposition, even though the Plaintiff was donated the instant real estate by Nonparty clan clan on March 6, 2000, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, the owner of the instant real estate at the time of the instant attachment disposition by the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s joint and several taxpayers of inheritance tax.

(b)whether standing to sue is standing;

After the attachment disposition of this case, the Plaintiff acquired ownership through the transfer of the instant real estate and the completion of the registration of ownership transfer after the attachment disposition of this case has a real and indirect interest in the attachment disposition of this case, not having a direct and specific interest in law, so there is no standing to seek nullification of the attachment disposition

3. Conclusion

The appeal against this case is dismissed because it is an incidental law.