Whether a purchaser or a person holding a provisional attachment right to seek revocation of the attachment disposition against the real estate in arrears is eligible (negative)

In cases where a tax authority attaches real estate owned by a taxpayer for the purpose of collecting taxes, a purchaser of such real estate or a person holding a provisional seizure shall have a de facto and indirect interest in the seizure disposition, and shall not have a direct and specific interest in the seizure disposition, and therefore there is no standing to seek the revocation of

Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2080 Decided October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1686) Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6023 Decided March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1449) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1505 Decided April 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1590)

Seoul Building Comprehensive Materials Exhibition Center

Head of the Gu U.S. Tax Office and one other

Daegu High Court Decision 95Gu4750 delivered on January 12, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal against the defendant U.S. Tax Office.

In cases where a tax authority seizes real estate owned by a person liable to pay taxes for the purpose of collecting taxes, a purchaser of the said real estate or a person holding the provisional seizure shall not be eligible to seek the revocation of the seizure disposition, since he/she has a de facto and indirect interest in the above seizure disposition and does not have any direct and specific interest in law (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu6023, Mar. 31, 1992; 89Nu2080, Oct. 10, 1989, etc.). Thus, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate owned by a non-party company that is the person liable to pay taxes while making the provisional seizure, and even if a lawsuit was filed against the non-party company to demand the revocation of the seizure disposition of this case, such circumstance alone shall be deemed to have no standing

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the revocation of attachment disposition of this case, and it is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing or in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court's precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not purporting that the provisional attachment takes precedence over the effect of the disposition on default.

2. As to the appeal against Defendant Korea Assets Management Corporation, no grounds of appeal are stated in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)