logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
쟁점부동산 전체를 압류한 것은 부당하다는 청구주장의 당부
조세심판원 조세심판 | 2014-02-24 | 조심2013서1581 | 기타
[Case Number]

[Case Number] High Court Decision 2013west 1581 (O25, 2014)

[Items]

[Items ] Other [Types of Determination]

[Summary of Decision]

[Summary of the Decision] In light of the fact that the real estate at issue is registered as owned by each inheritor's shares in inheritance on the register of the company, and that the judgment presented by the appellant is a performance judgment and it is difficult to recognize that each inheritor's shares in installments are owned by each real estate on the grounds that it constitutes an implementation judgment, there is no other error of refusing

[Related Acts]

[Related Acts] Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

【Reference Decision】

[Reference Decision] Cho 2010 Gwangju 1944 / early 2013 / early 20127/ early 2011 0014

【Disposition】

The appeal is dismissed.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of disposition

A. ApplicantO is the spouse of the decedent, who is the major shareholder of OO Co., Ltd. and OOO Co., Ltd., deceased on March 30, 2002, and OOO is the spouse of OO, the claimant's OO and the claimant's other OOO is both the OO's children, and OO's inheritors's heirs.

(b)The disposal authority shall determine and notify OOO of the inheritance tax inherited on March 30, 2004 to the heirs on May 30, 2004, but, in the course of refunding part of the amount of tax paid by the inheritors through lawsuits between heirs and the disposal authorities on several occasions, it shall refund OOO on December 30, 208 (hereinafter referred to as "related amount") to the inheritors;

Where the inheritance tax amount overpaid or erroneously paid after the commencement of the inheritance is refunded to the heir, if there is no separate agreement on the division of inherited property, it should be appropriated or refunded to each heir in proportion to the inherited portion in accordance with Articles 1009 through 1013 of the Civil Act, but the disposition agency has to refund the amount of related amount to the OO, OO, and OO in the course of the refund of related amount, and the remainder of the heir has not been refunded, so the applicant's OO has been refunded to each OO, OO, and OO has been excessively refunded to each OO, and OO has become excessively refunded to the OO, and the OO has become excessively refunded to the OO, and the OO has been refunded to the OO.

The disposition agency notified the OO of the payment of excess refund money to the OO in January 2009, attached the deposit claim, etc. in the name of the OO in order that the OO failed to comply with it. On March 12, 2009, the agency notified the OO of the collection of excess refund money, but on March 12, 2009, the agency seized 10 real estate registered in the name of the OO (hereinafter referred to as "related real estate") among the inherited property as the OO returned only a part of the tax amount.

Since the petitioners are expected to own the relevant real estate in accordance with the agreement division, they applied for the cancellation of attachment due to such improper seizure, but the OO Commissioner of the National Tax Service rejected it on January 14, 2013.

C. The petitioners appealed against this and filed an appeal on March 20, 2013.

2. Opinions of the petitioners and disposition authorities;

A. Appellants' assertion

(1)First, the facts of this case shall be as follows:

(A)On March 30, 2002, there was a dispute over the inherited property among the inheritors, and OOO and OOO filed a claim for OOOOO on May 7, 2002 support for the division of inherited property. On September 9, 2003, the heir was conducting an examination on the division of inherited property, 18 parcels of inherited property, OOOO shares of OOOO, etc., after consultation on the division of inherited property, OOO and OO land and buildings, OOO land and buildings, OOOO, OOO and land and buildings, OOOO land and land were owned by OOO, OOO and land of the same military as OO land, and OO land were confirmed by agreement among the heirs (OOO).

Since then, as a dispute arises between inheritors regarding the completion of the registration of ownership transfer following the above agreement on the division of inherited property, the OO filed a claim against the remaining inheritors for the registration of ownership transfer of OO land and building following the agreement on the division of inherited property. The court accepted the claim of OO in accordance with the above agreement, and OO andOO also received a judgment of acceptance by filing a claim for ownership transfer registration of OO land and building that they decided to own.

Accordingly, the OOOO made it clear that the agreement on the division of inherited property of OO on September 9, 2003 would be valid by rejecting the claim for division of inherited property of OOO on the ground that "OOO for the claimant, who is the co-inheritors of OOOOO, and the other non-party OOO on September 9, 2003, the fact that the agreement on division of inherited property was concluded as described in the agreement and separate agreement."

(b)In the event of an application for registration of inheritance by agreement division, a certificate of seal impression shall be submitted by all successors affixed to the written agreement for division, and even though the court confirmed the establishment of the agreement for division of inherited property on September 9, 2003, the successors did not cooperate in the application for registration based on agreement for division of inherited property by means of not providing a certificate of seal impression.

Accordingly, one of the inheritors filed an application for registration of transfer of ownership according to the statutory shares in inheritance, which is a method possible at the request of one co-inheritors, with a concern that the registration of inheritance will be at a disadvantage due to delay of registration of inheritance.

On the other hand, after the inheritance registration has been completed, the OO court has re-verificationd that "OO land, buildings like the above OO land and the above OO land according to the agreement on the division of inherited property, and buildings and buildings for the same OO land and buildings as that for OO land, OO land and buildings for OO land, OO, OOO land and buildings for OO, OOO land and buildings for OO, OO land and buildings for OO land, OO land and buildings for OO land, and OO land and buildings for the same OO land, and OO land and buildings for the same OO land."

(c)In the course of paying a refund to the heir in relation to this case, the Administration issued a notice of excess refund tax collection to the OOO on March 12, 2009, which was part of the refunded amount (OOO; hereinafter referred to as "excess refund amount"), and issued a notice of tax payment in the form of an inheritance tax imposition, and the notification of such collection was sent to the OO on March 12, 2009, and the heir was entered into the National Tax Service’s computer network as if the heir were jointly and severally liable for tax payment, so that the heir was in arrears of inheritance tax equivalent to the above OO's total amount. The Administration seized the pertinent real estate owned by the heir as shown in the list of seizure status (hereinafter referred to as "the list of seizure status"), excluding the seizure status No. 51O-10 and 130O-200, excluding the real estate related title No. 3130,000,000.

Table 1 of the seizure status of related immovables;

OO's shares (2/26) in the owner's 1O's land (2/13) in consultation on the division of inherited property as of the date of the registration subject to attachment (2/26), 209.1.28.28.202.3.28.203O's shares in (2/13) 4O's shares in 2/13) OO's land (2/13) O's shares in 2/13) O's land and O's shares in 201.13.203O's shares in the land (2/13) 2013.3.12.203O's shares in 2013O's land (2/13) O's shares in 60's land (2/2013) O's shares in 2013.313O's shares in land (20/13) O20130'20's shares in O231320.320'O's.37

(d)In doing so, the successors filed an application for cancellation of the instant attachment disposition against the disposition authority on the grounds that ① this case’s attachment is a seizure of real estate owned by others, not a delinquent taxpayer, and ② that the inheritors were not delinquent in inheritance tax, but the OOO Commissioner sent to the inheritor a notice of refusal to request the cancellation of attachment on January 14, 2013.

(2)The rejection disposition of cancellation of the attachment is unjust on the following grounds:

(A) The agreement on the division of inherited property has been made effective on September 9, 2003 between inheritors, and such agreement on the division of inherited property takes effect retroactively from the time of commencement of inheritance (the main text of Article 1015 of the Civil Act). In light of the fact that inheritance constitutes a change in real rights under the provisions of law and does not require registration as a requirement for the change in real rights (Article 187 of the Civil Act) as it constitutes a change in real rights, the ownership on the register of the real estate in the list of seizure status Nos. 1 through 4 and 5-2 and 10 of the real estate subject to the seizure disposition is an OO, and even if the ownership on the register of the real estate No. 5-1 real estate becomes an OO on September 9, 203, the legitimate owner is No. O(1 through 3), O(4), O(O4,O-O-4, 51-O-2 and 61-O-O-10.

Therefore, the attachment status table Nos. 1 through 10 does not have any right to the entire related real estate, and the attachment of the real estate owned by OO or OO is the attachment of the real estate by a third party, not the delinquent, even though the remaining inheritors did not bear joint and several tax liability for the return of excess refund money of OO, even though they were not subject to the joint and several tax liability for the return of excess refund money of OO.

As such, the disposition of seizure against a third party's property, other than a delinquent taxpayer's property, is a disposition of invalidation which has a significant and obvious defect in the subject of the seizure (Supreme Court Decision 86Nu61 Decided July 8, 1986). If the tax authority deems that the third party's claim on the ownership of the attached property is well-grounded, it shall immediately release the attached property (Article 53 (1) 2 of the National Tax Collection Act). However, the tax authority did not immediately release the attached property, and the disposition of refusing to release the attached property on January 14, 2013 is an illegal disposition contrary to Article 53 (1) 2 of the National Tax Collection Act.

(b)The Administration has the retroactive effect on the division of inherited property based on the proviso to Article 1015 (Retroactive Effect of Division) of the Civil Act as to the above claimant's assertion, and it cannot set up against the registration of seizure by the agency which has already been lawfully made, so this seizure disposition is not against the property owned by others other than the taxpayer;

Considering the proviso to Article 1015 of the Civil Act that the retroactive effect of division of inherited property is a provision to prevent harm to the safety of transaction conducted in relation to inherited property from the commencement of inheritance to the time of division, the retroactive effect of division is limited to a third party for whom the right cannot be infringed even if the retroactive effect of division of inherited property was divided before the division of inherited property, and a third party for whom the registration was made is limited to a person who has entered into a change in rights or a requisite for setting up against the obligor, and a third party for whom the registration has not been made does not constitute a third party whose retroactive effect under the proviso to Article 1015 of the Civil Act is limited (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da31514, Nov. 24, 1992; 95Da5426, Apr. 26, 1996); and since the consultation on division of inherited property on September 9, 2008 to March 28, 2012, the disposition agency that has completed the registration of seizure of inherited property constitutes a third party under the proviso to Article 15 of the Civil Act.

In particular, the OOO decision rendered on December 8, 2003 and OO decision rendered on June 17, 2004 and OO decision rendered on June 17, 2004 recognized that the agreement on the division of inherited property between inheritors was effective on September 9, 2003. Since the above decision was rendered while the heir contests the amount of inherited property imposed by the OO, for reasons of the agreement on the division of inherited property, the OO decision became well known that the above agreement on the division of inherited property was effective. In other words, the OO decision cannot be deemed as a third party under the proviso of Article 1015 (Retroactive Effect of Division) of the Civil Act. Thus, the OO decision refused the cancellation of attachment on the ground of the proviso of Article 1015 of the Civil Act is an unlawful disposition without any grounds.

(c)In addition, in accordance with General Rule 24-02 of the National Tax Collection Act (in the case of a property which is registered or recorded, it is presumed that it belongs to the holder of the title of the registration or record), the agency claims that the real estate subject to the attachment disposition is presumed to be owned by the OO, the holder of the title of the registration, and that the attachment thereof is lawful. However, in light of the agreement on the division of inherited property and related decisions among the successors, the above presumption cannot be maintained any longer, as long as it is clearly confirmed that the real estate subject to the attachment disposition is not the ownership of theOO, not the ownership of theOO.

(d)In addition, the Do Office asserts that the proviso to Article 548(1) of the Civil Act is applicable in the event that the agreement on division of inherited property is rescinded, and that the registration of seizure as part of the disposition on default constitutes a third party provided for in the proviso, and thus, it cannot prejudice the rights of the Republic of Korea on the ground that the agreement on division of inherited property is rescinded (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga246360 Decided January 11, 201). However, this case’s seizure disposition is also valid on the ground that it constitutes a third party after the registration on division of inherited property in the Republic of Korea;

The above judgment concerns the scope of a third party under the proviso to Article 548(1) of the Civil Act that does not have the effect of rescission in cases where an agreement on division is rescinded after the consultation on division of inherited property. This case concerns a third party under the proviso to Article 1015 of the Civil Act that limits the retroactive effect of the division of inherited property, not a third party under the proviso to Article 548(1) of the Civil Act, and it is apparent that a person who did not make the registration of seizure before the division of inherited property, as seen earlier, is not a third party under the proviso to Article 1015 of the Civil Act (Retroactive Effect of Division) (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da31514, Nov. 24, 1992; 95Da5426, Apr. 26, 1996).

(b)Opinion of the Administration;

On January 28, 2009, the date of the attachment registration, notwithstanding the judgment on the lawsuit between the inheritors, the shares of the inheritors in the register of the inherited real estate as of January 28, 2009 are registered as shares of ownership transfer registration to the inheritors according to the statutory shares of inheritance on January 19, 204, and the OO also owns 2/13 of the shares of the OO; therefore, the attachment registration is made lawfully for that shares of the OO;

According to General Rule 24-02 (Reversion of property) of the National Tax Collection Act, in the case of a property registered or recorded, it is presumed that the property belongs to the holder of the title of the registration or record, and even until now, its seizure is lawful;

In accordance with Article 1015 of the Civil Act, the agreement on division of inherited property has been effective on September 9, 2003 between inheritors, and such agreement on division of inherited property takes effect retroactively from the date on which the inheritance commences, the proviso to the same Article provides that "no third party's right shall be undermined," and this is determined to promote the safety of transaction so as to avoid clear and unforeseeable damage to the third party in the transaction relationship. The third party is a person who has a interest in the division of inherited property before the division of inherited property and who has received or seized a security for each inheritance share, and the third party is also a person who has an interest in the division of inherited property, and thus the disposition agency also falls under the third party (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da246360 decided January 11, 2012). Such a seizure disposition is legitimate.

3. Hearing and determination

(a)a dispute:

Since the pertinent real estate was agreed upon by each inheritor to own the real estate in installments, it is unreasonable to seize the entire real estate on the ground of the failure to pay OO's arrears.

(b)the relevant legislation;

(1) National Tax Collection Act;

Article 24 (Attachment) (1) The head of a tax office (including the director of a regional tax office in cases of delinquent taxpayers prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account the period of delinquency and the amount in arrears; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall seize the taxpayer's property

1. Where the taxpayer fails to completely pay national taxes and the additional dues by the designated period after receiving a notice of demand (including a peremptory notice);

Article 50 (Third Party Claim of Ownership) Any third party who intends to claim ownership of the attached property and request its return shall submit evidential documents proving that the third party is the owner at least five days before the sale.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release from Attachment) (1) The head of a tax office shall immediately release the attachment in any of the following cases:

1. Where the attachment is no longer needed because of payment, appropriation, suspension of a public auction, cancellation of the imposition, or other reasons;

2. If the justification for the third person's claim on the ownership under Article 50 is deemed reasonable;

3. If the third person proves that he/she has obtained a favorable judgment of the court in the lawsuit on the ownership against the defaulted taxpayer.

(2) Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

Article 55 (Third Party Claim of Ownership) (1) Where a third party claims the ownership of the attached property and requests the return thereof pursuant to Article 50 of the Act, the tax official shall suspend the execution of disposition on default of the property.

(2) If a tax official deems that the grounds for request under paragraph (1) are justifiable, he/she shall release the seizure without delay and shall notify the claimant of such fact without delay if he/she deems that such request is unjustifiable

(iii)Civils;

Any acquisition, loss or transfer of real rights by a juristic act concerning immovables under Article 186 shall take effect upon the registration of such acquisition, loss or transfer of real rights.

The acquisition of real rights over immovables as prescribed in Article 187 (Acquisition of Real Rights over Immovables not Requiring Registration) through inheritance, expropriation, judgment, auction and others as prescribed in provisions of law shall not require registration: Provided, That the immovable shall not be disposed of unless it has been registered.

Article 269 (Method of Partition) (1) If an agreement on the method of partition does not lead to an agreement, co-owners may request the court to divide the shares.

(2) When it is impossible to divide in kind or the value thereof is likely to be reduced remarkably due to a division, the court may order an auction of goods.

Article 548 (Effect of Rescission and Duty of Restoration) (1) When one of the parties has rescinded a contract, each party shall be obligated to reinstate to the other party: Provided, That the rights of a third party shall not be prejudiced thereby.

(2) In the case of the preceding paragraph, interest shall accrue from the day on which such money has been received.

Article 1012 (Determination of Method of Division or Prohibition of Division by Will) An inheritee may, by will, determine the method of division of the inherited property, entrust a third person with such determination, or may prohibit division for a period not exceeding five years from the time of the commencement of the inheritance.

Article 1013 (Division by Agreement) (1) Except as provided for in the preceding Article, co-inheritors may divide their inherited property at any time by agreement.

(2) Article 269 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the division of inherited property.

§ 1015 (Retroactive Effect of Division) Division of an inherited property shall have effect retroactively from the time of commencement of the inheritance: Provided, That the rights of third parties shall not be prejudiced.

(c)fact-finding relations and judgments;

(1) We examine the data submitted by the petitioners.

(a)The status of payment of inheritance tax refunds to the disposal agency for successors is as follows:

Current status of payment of inheritance tax refunds

An inheritor’s share of inheritance on an inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based inheritance-based on an amount of an additional payment to be paid, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

(unit: %) per cent, won

(b)The particulars of the relevant real estate seized (Partial cancellation) in relation to any excess refund money of theOO shall be as follows:

2030.320/130 of the shares of 330.320,000 (6/130), 2030.330/120 of the shares of 330.330/120,000 (6/130,000) in the shares of 330/120,000 (6/130,000) in the shares of 330/120,000,000,0006.330,000,000,000,000 for 30/1320,000,000,000 for 230/130,000 (6/13,000) of the shares of 130/130,000,000 for 30/120,000 for 30/13030,000 or more of the shares of 333330.O.3030/130/130.

Details of seizure of related real estate.

(c)The main contents of the agreement between successors (as referred to in September 9, 2003; hereinafter referred to as "agreement") and the separate agreement (as referred to in subparagraph 9, 2003; hereinafter referred to as " separate agreement") are as follows:

Major contents of the agreement among successors.

A party to an agreement and appellant: ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○...

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

·Detailed Statement of Stocks

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(unit: Won)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

name of corporation

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Number of Stocks

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Par Value

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Revaluation amount

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person to inherit;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

○ ○

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Total

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Details of separate agreement among successors.

A party to an agreement: ○○○○○○, the other party to an agreement: The content of the agreement and the other party to an agreement shall have all the rights to the ○○○○○, and the other inheritors and related persons shall transfer to the ○○○○○○○○, all the rights to the ○○○○○○, and the other inheritors and related persons shall transfer to the ○○○○○, all the rights to the ○○○○○, and the ○○○○, shall be assigned to the ○○○○. The ○○○ shall pay the ○○○○, an OO’s real estate located in the ○○○○, and an ownership transfer registration procedure for the real estate located in the ○○○○ on the ground of an exchange on September 9, 2003. The amount allocated under the agreement shall be paid to the ○○○○○○○○○, which shall be paid to the ○○○○○○, an additional share of the ○○○, and an additional share of the ○○○.

(d)The main points of the decision regarding the partition suit of the inherited property concerned are as follows:

(1)The main points of the judgments ofOO(division of inherited property),OO(Joint),OO(Joint)(Joint), will be as follows:

The main points of Table 6 EOOOOOO, OOOOOOO judgment.

○○○○○ and the other party: OOO or the other party: All of the claims shall be dismissed. The claim for the division of inherited property and the inherited property shall be legally appropriate between the claimant (○○○) and the other party as to the inherited property stated in the separate sheet 1 of OO. The amount of the contributory portion of the claimant (OO) shall be determined by 1/2 of each inherited property listed in the separate sheet 2 and 4. As to the inherited property listed in the separate sheet 2 and 4 of OO, a reasonable statutory division shall be made by taking into account the contributory portion of the claimant and the other party’s special benefits. The claim for the division of inherited property and inherited property may be made at the time that the agreement on division is not reached or cannot be reached among the co-inheritors. According to the purport of the record and examination, even if the agreement on division of inherited property and agreement on division was concluded on September 9, 2003, some of the co-inheritors’s claims for the division of inherited property under the separate sheet 4 of the O’s agreement on the division were concluded between the co-inheritors and other co-inheritors.

2)OOO(OO on June 17, 2004), the main points of the decision are as follows, and the claimant's OO or OO was appealed, but it was dismissed by OO or later, but it was also dismissed by OO, and OO or claimant asserted that the claimant's OO filed an application for registration of transfer of ownership solely according to statutory shares in inheritance, as the heir did not comply with the procedure for registration of the above real estate, and the heir filed an application for registration of transfer of ownership pursuant to statutory shares in inheritance.

Table 7. Details of the judgment ofOO.

The parties to a lawsuit, the plaintiff: ○○○○○○, the defendant: with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the defendantO was liable for 3/13 shares; with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the defendantO entered 2/13 shares, the defendantO implemented the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the inheritance division consultation on September 9, 2003; 1) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (each of these real estate), recognized facts and attached list, the ownership transfer registration under the name of OOO for the same monthly sale was completed by OO, as OO for the same monthly sale; 3) the above OO died on March 30, 202; 3) the heir, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the defendants, the heir of the OOO, were liable for the ownership transfer registration on each of the real estate owned by the plaintiff 3/1,000, and 30O/1,000 shares on each of these real estate.

(3)The main points of the OO rulings are as follows:

Main contents of Table 8.O's rulings

A party to a lawsuit: ○○○○○○○○, and Defendant: O-1) DefendantO-O-2 shall simultaneously receive from the Plaintiff the ownership transfer registration for 2/13 shares of each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 3, 4, and 5, and the ownership transfer registration for 2/13 shares of each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 3, 4, and 5.O-2 of the real estate listed in attached Tables 7, DefendantO-O-2 of the aforesaid list shall receive from the Plaintiff the ownership transfer registration for 2/13 shares of the real estate listed in attached Tables 8 through 16, and DefendantO-2 of the aforesaid list shall receive from the Plaintiff the ownership transfer registration for 3/13 shares of each of the real estate listed in attached Tables 3, 100-O-2 of the aforesaid list, 300-O-13 of the real estate shares of each of the aforesaid real estate, and 30-O/13 of the aforesaid list of the real estate shares of each of the real estate;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

(e)In addition, the claimant has submitted an application for national tax refund, a certified copy of the inherited property, and the details of the case search by the Supreme Court relating to this case.

(2) According to the "Notice of Refusal to Request for Release of Attachment" sent by the Commissioner of the OOOO Commissioner to the inheritor (as of January 14, 2013), the inheritor is expected to own real estate as a result of the division of inherited property (registration by present shares) and thus the disposition agency is illegal to seize the share of real estate by OO or OOO. However, this case is a seizure lawfully made after the registration of inheritance by share. However, despite the retroactive effect of the division of inherited property, the attachment cannot be asserted against the registration of the disposition agency initially lawfully made, so the heir's request cannot be accepted, and is stated as a follow-up measure that can proceed with the revocation of the disposition of inheritance tax.

(3)In this case, the claimant asserts that the disposition rejecting the application for cancellation of the attachment of the real estate at issue is unfair, inasmuch as the result of several lawsuits among heirs, and that the pertinent real estate was divided by agreement among heirs on September 9, 2003, respectively, was found to be improper;

The judgment on whether the seized real estate is owned by a third party shall be made according to the external validity of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do127, Nov. 11, 2013; 201Hu14, Apr. 18, 2011); in the case of the disputed real estate, the inheritors are registered as holding the shares of inheritance; thus, it is difficult to release the seizure by deeming it as being owned by the inheritors by each real estate as being divided, and the judgment presented by the petitioners are deemed not a formation judgment, but a performance judgment, so long as the registration of ownership transfer is not completed pursuant to Article 186 of the Civil Act, it is difficult to recognize that the pertinent real estate is owned by the inheritors by each real estate as divided ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1944, Oct. 25, 2010).

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes because the petition for appeal is groundless as a result of the review.

arrow