The assertion that title trust was made with respect to the real estate disposed of by attachment is without merit.

The assertion that the actual owner of the real property disposed of by attachment has another title trust is without merit.

Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daegu District Court 2014Guhap2289 Reduction of Seizure Scope

N

O Head of tax office

on January 20, 2015

on October 10, 2015

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Before November 13, 2013, 200, 000, 000, 000, 250,000,000 a.e., single-story roof of a reinforced concrete structure, single-story housing, 98.64 square meters, and 46.4 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in storage of the steel pipe structure knive roof one-story, multi-story of a pipe structure, multi-story, multi-story housing, the scope of seizure granted to SS shall be reduced to 4/7.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff’s husband, SS completed registration of initial ownership relating to the instant building.

B. On November 13, 2013, the Defendant recognized that SS had committed an act of evading taxes, such as filing a report and tax payment of capital gains tax on the 000 Do 000 Do 321, 3,242 Do 321 Do , and filing an application for reduction and exemption, etc., and issued a seizure disposition on the instant building pursuant to Articles 24(2) and 14(1)7 of the National Tax Collection Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on November 13, 2013, and the attachment registration was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea with respect to the instant building upon entrustment of the seizure registration. The Plaintiff from SS on January 15, 2014 to three-seven portion of the instant building.

On November 26, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the termination of the title trust.

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 of the grounds for recognition

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff sought a new disposition that changed the scope of seizure against the Defendant on the ground that 3/7 of the instant building was originally owned by the Plaintiff, and that the scope of seizure against the Defendant was trusted to SS. However, such lawsuit seeking performance of obligations is not permissible under the current Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. (b) Even if the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is deemed to seek cancellation of the portion of 3/7 of the instant building among the dispositions of this case, it is deemed that the Plaintiff received a request for review or adjudgment pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes and other tax laws, and thus, it cannot be brought without filing a request for review or adjudgment pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act and the National Tax Collection Act, and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the Plaintiff’s request for review or adjudgment pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act and the National Tax Collection Act’s request for review is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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