logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2010. 01. 21. 선고 2009누2700 판결
신탁재산에 발생한 부가가치세에 대해 위탁자의 신탁재산을 압류할 수 있는지 여부[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Daejeon District Court 2009Guhap1060 (No. 30, 2009)

Title

Whether the truster's trust property can be seized on the value-added tax generated from trust property

Summary

Attachment of trust property on the basis of value-added tax claim against a truster after the trust under the Trust Act is made shall be null and void.

The decision

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

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

A. The primary purport of the claim is to confirm that the attachment disposition made by the defendant against the plaintiff on October 8, 2008 on each real estate listed in the separate sheet is null and void.

B. Preliminary claim: Revocation of the above attachment disposition.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiff's main and conjunctive claims are dismissed.

Reasons

1.The reasons for this judgment are as shown in the judgment of the first instance except that the following are added to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance:

(1) The following contents shall be added between 3, 17 and 18:

" Accordingly, the defendant issued a collection disposition under the National Tax Collection Act only against the non-party company, the truster, and accordingly issued a seizure disposition of this case. However, on the other hand, the plaintiff did not report the value-added tax of this case, and there was no other dispute between the defendant and the plaintiff (the fact that there was no dispute).

(2) On the 4th page, the phrase “non-section 7” is added to the phrase “(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da54276, Mar. 13, 2008)”, and the phrase “assumpt 10” is added to the phrase “assumpt 4, Oct. 15, 1996” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct. 15, 1996) and “assum 12” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da3925, Nov. 23, 2006).

2. If so, the first instance judgment accepting the plaintiff's primary claim is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.

arrow