Whether or not a disposition rejecting an application for cancellation of attachment is justifiable

In the Civil Code, the registration of change of ownership shall take effect, but since the requirements for cancellation of attachment are not satisfied because the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the plaintiffs at the time of seizure, the plaintiffs' appeal shall be dismissed due to lack of reasons.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release of Attachment)

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The decision of the head of the ○○○○○○ on April 6, 2006 by the head of the ○○○○ Tax Office on May 19, 2006 is revoked. The rejection of each application for cancellation of attachment against the plaintiffs is revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, in addition to the part concerning the matters alleged by the plaintiffs in the trial, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts: (a) the part concerning the legality of the disposition taken by the head of ○○○○○○ Office by the court of first instance, and therefore, (b) pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 42

[Completioned Parts]

2. Whether a disposition by the head of ○○○○○ is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) On January 7, 1990, prior to the seizure of the instant land by the head of Defendant ○○○○○, Plaintiff ○○ and ○○○○○ purchased the instant land from ○○○○ and paid the purchase price in full. However, due to the provisions of the Farmland Act at the time, the registration of transfer was not possible, first of all, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring land was completed in his name and the provisional disposition was made, and thereafter the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, even though the ownership of the instant land remains in the future ○○○○ at the time of the above seizure, it was actually owned by the Plaintiffs, so it constitutes a requirement for cancellation of attachment under Article 53(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act.

(2) In addition, if the right to collect local taxes from the head of Defendant ○○○○○ is not exercised within five years from the time it can be exercised, the extinctive prescription becomes complete. Since five years have passed since the head of Defendant ○○○○○○’s seizure of the instant land, the extinctive prescription has expired.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition by the head of the Gu is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the cancellation of attachment constitutes a requirement

Article 53 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act applied mutatis mutandis under Article 82 of the Local Tax Act provides that the head of a tax office shall release the attachment in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 2 of Article 50 provides that "where the third party's claim on the ownership under Article 50 is deemed to have a reasonable ground, the above provision stipulates that the third party's claim on the ownership is deemed to be held as at the time of the attachment. However, as long as the real estate falls under the ownership of the delinquent taxpayer at the time of the attachment disposition, as long as other creditors made a provisional disposition prior to the attachment disposition on the real estate or the transfer of ownership is made in the third party's name after the attachment disposition, such circumstance alone does not constitute the requirements for the cancellation of attachment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu701, Apr. 12, 198; 83Nu332, Aug. 23, 1983).

On the other hand, since the change of ownership due to a juristic act on real estate takes effect pursuant to Article 186 of the Civil Act, even if the plaintiffs' assertion on the contract details or payment, etc. were accepted, as long as the registration of ownership transfer was not completed in the future of the plaintiffs at the time of seizure of defendant ○○○○○○ Office on the land in this case, the owner of the land in this case still becomes ○○○○, which is the defaulted taxpayer, and thus, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for cancellation of attachment under Article 53

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the statute of limitations expired

If the right to collect local taxes is not exercised for five years from the time it can be exercised (Article 30-5(1) of the Act), the extinctive prescription shall expire (Article 30-6(1) of the Act); and the statute of limitations shall be interrupted (Article 30-6(1) of the Act); and the statute of limitations interrupted shall begin to run anew from the time when the period from the time when the seizure is cancelled until the seizure is cancelled (Article 30-6(2) of the Act). Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to the land of this case by the head of ○○○○○○ on December 20, 194.

Therefore, until seizure is cancelled, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect local taxes by the defendant ○○○ Office shall be interrupted. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition by Defendant ○○○ Office is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.