Whether it constitutes a ground for cancellation of attachment under the National Tax Collection Act

Only after the seizure of this case, the Plaintiff was subject to a provisional disposition for the prohibition of disposal of the instant real estate, and cannot be deemed as the owner of the instant real estate at the time of seizure, and thus, the requirements for the cancellation of attachment cannot be deemed as satisfied.

Article 24 (Requirements for Attachment)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal to cancel the attachment against the plaintiff on October 10, 2002 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 피고는 1998.8.28. 김○○의 체납세액 107,228,580원을 징수하기 위하여 ○○시○○○동 산 ○○-○ 임야 2,355㎡ 중 김㎡㎡ 소유의 각 2355/4710 지분(이하, 이 사건 부동산이라 한다.)을 압류하고, ○○수원지방법원 ○○지원 1998.8.26. 접수 제97522호로 압류등기를 마쳤다.(이하 이 사건 압류라 한다.)

B. On September 7, 1998, the Plaintiff received from the ○○ District Court the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate as the preserved right, and registered the provisional disposition on September 11, 1998. On September 4, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against ○○ District Court 98Da66884 on September 4, 1998 against ○○ District Court 98Kadan6884 on the claim for the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate and received the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 3, 1999, and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. Meanwhile, on September 26, 2002, the Commission applied for the cancellation of the instant seizure to the Defendant. On October 10, 2002, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the request for cancellation on the ground that “The provisions of Articles 50 and 53(1)2 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 55(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act are based on the premise that the third party’s ownership right is reasonable as at the time of seizure of the property. Thus, the favorable judgment that received the said title rather than at the time of seizure as the Plaintiff does not meet the requirements for cancellation of attachment, and thus, it is impossible to cancel the attachment.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unauthorized Facts, Gap's entry in Gap's 1, 2, 3, and 3 as Gap's 1, 2, Gap's 4, 5, and 6, Gap's 9, 10, Gap's 1, 2, 11, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

On March 2, 1993, the plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff purchased the real estate from Kim○○○, but the Kim○○ did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds that he refused the registration of ownership transfer, etc. on February 3, 199. The decision was sentenced on February 3, 199, and the owner of ownership was made five days prior to the sale in accordance with Article 50 of the National Tax Collection Act. The decision of this case asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful even though it was rejected because the third party's owner of ownership was subject to considerable reasons pursuant to

(b) Related statutes;

It is as stated in the attached statutes.

C. Determination

Article 53(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the head of a tax office shall release the attachment in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs. Article 53(1) of the same Act provides that “Where a third party’s assertion of ownership under the provisions of Article 50 is deemed to have a considerable reason,” subparagraph 2 provides that “Where a third party proves that he/she has won a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit on ownership against a delinquent taxpayer, the said provision provides that all of the above provisions refer to cases where the assertion that the property seized at the time of seizure is owned by a third party or it becomes final and conclusive in civil procedure that the property is owned by a third party. Thus, as long as the real estate falls under the ownership of a delinquent taxpayer at the time of the attachment disposition, even if another creditor attached the real estate before the first attachment disposition or filed a lawsuit to request the delinquent taxpayer to perform the transfer registration of ownership after the attachment disposition, such circumstance alone does not constitute the requirement for the cancellation of attachment (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15193, Dec. 20

However, as seen above, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be the owner of the real estate of this case at the time of seizure, since he received a decision to prohibit the provisional disposal of the real estate of this case only after the seizure of this case, and cannot be deemed to be the person who received the final decision to execute the registration of the transfer of ownership, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

National Tax Collection Act

Article 24 (Requirements for Attachment)

1. The tax officials shall seize the taxpayer’s properties in the following cases:

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

2. If the taxpayer fails to pay completely the tax by the designated period after receiving a notice of tax payment before the period of the tax payment under Article 14 (1).

Article 50 (Third Party’s Claim on Ownership) Any third party who desires to claim the ownership of the attached property and request the return of it, shall submit those documents proving the ownership to the director of the tax office at least five days before its sale.

Article 53 (Requirements for Release of Attachment)

1. The director of the tax office shall release the attachment in the following cases:

2. Where the justification for the third person's claim on the ownership under Article 50 is deemed to be reasonable; and

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

Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

Article 55 (Ownership Claim by Third Person)

1. When a third person claims the ownership of the attached property and requests its return, pursuant to the provisions of Article 50 of the Act, the tax official shall suspend the execution of the disposition for arrears of the property; and

2. If the revenue official deems that the request under paragraph (1) is well-grounded, he shall release the attachment without delay, and if the reason is unfair, he shall notify it to the appellant without delay.