As long as property belonging to the delinquent taxpayer is attached externally, the attachment disposition shall become effective.

Even if the ownership registration under the name of a delinquent taxpayer was made through a title trust, its ownership shall be deemed to have been externally reverted to the delinquent taxpayer in accordance with the legal principles of title trust. As long as the tax authority seizes any property the ownership of which belongs to the delinquent taxpayer externally, the attachment disposition is valid.

Article 24 Attachment

Jeonju District Court 2013Guhap755 (No. 15, 2014)

○ ○

Head of the Tax Office

oly 23, 2013

January 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed. 3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The registration of seizure completed by the defendant on February 26, 2001 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

The attachment disposition is invalid. Preliminaryly, the attachment disposition is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 12, 1993, ○○○, the Plaintiff’s external village, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division on July 31, 1992 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On April 16, 1999, the Defendant imposed global income tax of 230,380 won on global income for 1996 and global income tax of 6,837,830 won for 195, global income tax of 1995, and global income tax of 9,513,690 won for 196. When each of the above global income tax was delinquent, the Defendant seized each of the instant real estate to collect the amount in arrears on February 22, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”), and the registration of seizure was completed on February 26, 201. [Grounds for recognition] The facts that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap’s evidence No. 3 through 5, Eul’s evidence No. 1, 2-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole oral argument.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary claim

△△△△△, the Plaintiff’s mother, held title trust on each of the instant real estate with the △△△, the owner of the instant real estate, and the △△△△△, died without cancelling the above title trust relationship, and the ownership transfer registration based on inheritance was completed on each of the instant real estate under the name of ○○○○, which is the child of △△△△△. The Plaintiff inherited each of the instant real estate from △△△△△, filed a lawsuit against the heir of ○○○, seeking the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the title trust termination, and won the final and conclusive judgment. At the time of the instant disposition, the owner of each of the instant real estate is not ○○, but ○○, the title truster, and therefore, the Defendant seized the instant real estate owned by a third party, which is not the delinquent at the time of

The defendant did not proceed with the realization procedure until ten years have passed since the completion of the seizure registration on each of the instant real estate on February 26, 2001. This constitutes an abuse of rights. Also, it is obvious that the estimated value of the instant real estate constitutes an abuse of rights, and there is no room to remain after appropriating it to the expenses for disposition on default and the amount of senior claim. Thus, the defendant should suspend the disposition on default pursuant to Article 85 of the National Tax Collection

3. Judgment on the main claim

Even if the tax authority seizes the property owned by a third party through the disposition on default against a taxpayer, the disposition does not lose the ownership of the property by the third party. Thus, the disposition on the property owned by a third party, which is not a delinquent taxpayer, cannot be legally realized regardless of whether the defect is objectively apparent, and thus, the disposition on the property cannot be legally realized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12117, Apr. 27, 1993). However, where the property is subject to the seizure is real estate, the issue of whether the property belongs to the taxpayer's ownership shall be determined by the validity of registration, and even if the registration on transfer of ownership in the delinquent taxpayer's name related to the real estate subject to the seizure is made through a title trust, the ownership shall be determined by

As long as the tax authority seizes any property externally owned by the delinquent taxpayer, the attachment disposition is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu61, Jul. 10, 1984). As to the instant case, ○○○, the inheritor of △△△△△△△, is a title trustee of each of the instant real estate, even though the ownership of each of the instant real estate is externally attributed to the delinquent taxpayer, and as long as the instant real estate is owned by ○○○, the delinquent taxpayer, is externally attributed to the delinquent taxpayer, the attachment disposition is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu61, Jul. 10, 1984).

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

4. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the conjunctive claim.

Article 2 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the items and rates of national taxes shall be prescribed by the Act, the National Tax Collection Act, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Adjustment of International Taxes Act, the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Punishment Procedure for Tax Evaders Act", and Articles 5 (1) and 56 (2) of the same Act provide that "no administrative litigation against illegal or unreasonable disposition, etc. shall be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon". Meanwhile, Article 24 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "where a taxpayer fails to pay national taxes and additional dues in full by the designated deadline after receiving a notice of demand (including a notice of demand)", the seizure of taxpayer's property shall be imposed.

In full view of the above provisions, the instant disposition is a disposition for arrears under the National Tax Collection Act on the ground of ○○○’s delinquency in global income tax, and thus, in order for the Plaintiff to institute an administrative litigation seeking its revocation on the grounds of illegality in the instant disposition, it shall undergo a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had undergone a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed by the Framework

Therefore, the conjunctive claim seeking cancellation of the instant disposition is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed as it is illegal and it is so decided as per Disposition.