Appropriateness of the disposition of seizure of immovables

A lawsuit shall be brought within 90 days from the date of becoming aware of the disposition, etc., but the lawsuit in this case was filed after the lapse of the above two periods.

Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act

1. The case shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of litigation are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

With respect to 3/12 shares among 76 square meters in ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the instant land shares, respectively, revoked the attachment disposition on February 19, 2003 with respect to ○○○○ District Court’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of the requisition ○○○○-○○○○○○○, and the head of the ○○○○○○○ City on the ground of local tax and ○○○○○○○, the attachment disposition on December 17, 2004 issued on the ground

1. Details of the disposition;

On February 12, 2003, the director of the tax office of defendant ○○○ Tax imposed the attachment on the part of the plaintiff's share in the land in this case under the name of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff"), and completed the attachment registration on the 19th of the same month. On December 16, 2004, the head of defendant ○○ Metropolitan City ○○○○ head issued the attachment disposition on the grounds of delinquency in payment, such as the plaintiff's automobile tax (hereinafter referred to as the "each attachment disposition of this case") and completed the attachment registration following the following day.

Evidence A 1, evidence A 5-1, evidence A 1 through 3, evidence A 4-1 through 4, evidence A 1-2, evidence A 1-1, 2-2, Eul 2-1 through 4, evidence A 3-1, 2-2, Eul 4-1 through 3, Eul 5, 6-1, 2-1 through 3, 5-2, 7-1 through 3 of the evidence A, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On January 2, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred the instant land shares to ○○○○ on the sole basis that the Defendants did not transfer only the registration but did not transfer the shares in the Plaintiff’s name. Moreover, the imposition of capital gains tax by Defendant ○○○ Tax Office is imposed on the grounds that there is no gains from transfer. The imposition of capital gains tax, such as automobile tax, etc. by the head of Defendant ○○○ Metropolitan City, is imposed on the Plaintiff. The imposition of automobile tax, etc. by the head of Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc. was imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff’s so far as it appears to be a single mother after the Plaintiff transferred the instant land to

3. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

A. The fact that ○○○○○○ did not have completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land shares subject to the transfer does not conflict between the parties, and thus, ○○○ does not have a person having a legal and specific interest with respect to each of the instant seizure dispositions against the said land shares, and thus, there is no standing to seek the revocation of each of the above seizure dispositions.

B. According to the main text of Article 20(1) and Article 20(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a suit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the Plaintiff becomes aware of the disposition, etc. in the case of a revocation suit, and if one of the two periods elapses, it becomes an unlawful suit. The attachment disposition by the head of the tax office of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on December 16, 2003 was made on February 12, 2003. As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant suit on January 15, 2007 after the lapse of one year from the date on which the attachment disposition was

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it, and it is so decided as per Disposition.