Whether the registration of seizure by the disposition on default is subject to civil litigation;

The registration of seizure made as a part of a disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act was paid in arrears unless there is any reason for invalidation as a result of the disposition on attachment, or even if the seizure claim becomes extinct due to the expiration of extinctive prescription, it can be registered only by the entrustment of registration attached with the record of cancellation of attachment by an administrative agency, and filing a request for registration of cancellation in civil procedure is illegal as it refers to seeking the cancellation of the seizure disposition against the administrative

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 24, 45, 47, 53, and 54 of the National Tax Collection Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (76Gahap2285) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of seizure registration for reasons of seizure by reason of the delinquent delinquent disposition on January 25 of the same year, which was made by Seoul District Court No. 4312 on February 11, 1960 with respect to the parts attached to the attached list to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances shall be borne by the defendant.

The gist of the fact that the plaintiff asserted is that the real estate listed in the attached list is currently owned by the plaintiff, and the defendant registered the seizure as stated in the purport of the disposition on default on January 25, 1960, which is the time when the non-party owns it. However, even if the defendant paid the amount in arrears after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the seizure claim, it is the purport of seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration on cancellation, since the extinctive prescription of the seizure claim is completed.

However, the registration of the seizure of this case alleged by the plaintiff, which is obvious that it was conducted as part of the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, is unlawful because it was returned to the administrative agency to seek the cancellation of the seizure disposition, even if it was paid in arrears as alleged by the plaintiff, or even if the seizure claim was extinguished due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, it can be registered only by the entrustment of registration attached with the release of the attachment by the administrative agency and the cancellation registration attached with the record of the release of the attachment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is illegal and dismissed. Since the original judgment is the same conclusion, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Osungsung (Presiding Judge)