Where registration of transfer of delinquent taxpayer's ownership is invalid, the validity of registration of seizure by tax authorities.

As the registration of ownership in the name of a delinquent taxpayer is null and void, the registration of seizure by the tax authority completed on the premise that the registration is valid. However, in this case where the actual owner seeks the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer based on the recovery of real name instead of seeking the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer against the delinquent taxpayer, the tax authority’s cancellation of registration of seizure cannot be claimed, and the tax authority’s disposition of arrears cannot be deemed null and void as it

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

Article 24 (Requirements for Attachment)

1. The Defendant Park ○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, 460 Miscellaneous land, 949 square meters, shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name.

2.The plaintiff's defendant against the Republic of Korea shall be dismissed.

3. The tension between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and the defendant 1 shall be borne respectively by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1, and the tension between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The main text of Paragraph 1 and the defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of seizure completed under No. 15368, Nov. 12, 2001, with respect to the ○○○○○ ○○○○ Gun, Gyeonggi-do, ○○ ○○ Gun, 460 miscellaneous land 949m2.

1.Basics

A. On October 10, 1913, the land investigation division prepared by the Joseon General and the provisional land investigation division around 10, 1913 is being investigated into the land investigation division of 00 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 460 m3, 949 m3, 460 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000 m3,000.

B. On November 5, 1965, Song ○ completed the registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case, and thereafter, the land of this case was sold before the former, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of donation on July 11, 1996.

C. Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant land as a result of the disposition on default against Defendant Park Jong-soo, and accordingly, the registration on the instant land was completed on November 12, 2001 by Ji Government District Court ○○ registry office 15368 as of November 12, 2001.

D. After the Plaintiff’s death on November 28, 1950 on the part of the Plaintiff, ○○○○, a South-Namn solely inherited the property. On November 14, 1959, on the part of the Plaintiff, the head of Song-Namn solely inherited the property. As Song-nam died on October 19, 1986, all the inheritors, including the Plaintiff, have completed the agreement on the division of inherited property with the Plaintiff’s sole ownership of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6's purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Park Jong-young

As the Plaintiff asserts that Song-tae was considered as the land of this case, it first examines whether the Plaintiff’s ○○○○ and the land of this case were the same person, which was determined as the Plaintiff’s ○○○ and the land of this case.

Gap evidence 8,9,11,15, and evidence 12-6 of Gap and evidence 12-2, and the fact-finding results with respect to 00 pages as a whole, may be acknowledged by considering the following circumstances:

① The Plaintiff’s title is equally the same to the consignor’s name on the land survey division of the instant land, and there is no other person’s book of the name of “songnuri-ri,” which is the name of “song-ri,” on the part of the Plaintiff’s failure and the Han-ri.

② The Plaintiff had resided in ○○○○○○○○-gun on July 25, 1941, when she had been transferred to 387 in ○○○-gun on July 25, 1941. However, his her son was born in 1912, 1925, 1925, 420 in ○○○-gun on October 1, 1928, her son was born in ○○○○-gun in 1928, and her son was born in ○○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○-gun, ○○○-gun, and 192. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son, the Plaintiff’s son’s son’s son’s son had her son.

③ In 1895, after being divided into ○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on September 12, 195).

In light of the above, the plaintiff's expansion ○○ and the land investigation division of the land of this case are presumed to be the same person.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to see that the owner of the land of this case is the plaintiff who solely inherited the Song-dong, a situation title, and thereby, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Song-dong, which is the title of the land of this case, shall be deemed null and void. Therefore, in order to recover the real name of registration, Defendant Park Jong-dong is liable to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the land

3. Determination on the Defendant’s claim against Korea

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case by the defendant Park Jong-dae is null and void, the defendant Park Jong-dae is obligated to cancel it to the plaintiff, and that the seizure registration under the name of the defendant Republic of Korea should also be cancelled on the premise that the registration is valid.

However, in the instant case where the Plaintiff sought the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration procedure against Defendant Park Jong-dong, instead of seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, and instead seeking the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the restoration of real name, the Plaintiff cannot seek the cancellation of the registration of seizure under the name of Defendant Republic of Korea on the sole basis of the foregoing reasons, and otherwise, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the circumstances that the disposition of arrears against

Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park Jong-young is justified, and the claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is dismissed as there is no ground.