Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap37308 ( October 14, 2011)

The disposition of attaching another person's property shall be deemed null and void because the defect is serious and apparent.

In light of the fact that a disposition of seizure is illegal in violation of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act and its contents cannot be legally realized because it is against another person's property who is not a taxpayer, etc., the disposition of seizure constitutes a serious and apparent invalidation.

2011Nu5874 Invalidity of attachment disposition

XX Trust Corporation

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap37308 Decided January 14, 2011

August 17, 2011

September 7, 2011

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's attachment disposition on May 27, 2008 against the deposit account listed in the separate sheet is invalid.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the allegations made by the Plaintiff and the judgment thereon; and (b) thus, (c) the same shall

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The amount of delinquent taxes in this case constitutes "the right that occurred in the course of performing the trust affairs" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act and thus constitutes a right that can be enforced or put up for auction against the trust property.

B. Determination

The "right arising in the course of performing the trust affairs" includes not only the right arising from the management and disposal of the trust property, but also the tax claim on the trust property, which is the right attributable to the trust property itself, after the establishment of the trust. However, since the instant company was incurred in the course of performing the business, it is merely a tax claim on the instant company, which is the truster, and cannot be viewed as a right arising from the Plaintiff's ordinary handling of the trust affairs or a tax claim on the trust property itself. The amount of the instant arrears does not fall under the "right arising in the course of performing the trust affairs" as stipulated in the proviso of Article 21

Therefore, in light of the fact that the disposition of this case is unlawful in violation of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act and its contents cannot be legally realized because it is against another person’s property other than a taxpayer, the disposition of this case is null and void as serious and apparent.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.