Attachment of trust property reverted to a trustee shall be null and void.

Attachment disposition against trust property is unnecessary to take a prior trial procedure, there is no limitation of the filing period, and attachment of trust property belonging to the trustee is null and void.

Article 24 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act

2011Guhap2461 Nullification of attachment disposition

XX Trust Co., Ltd.

Head of Suwon Tax Office

July 20, 2011

August 31, 2011

1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s attachment disposition against the real estate stated in the separate sheet on September 29, 2009 is invalid.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) On June 26, 2008, the Plaintiff is a corporation mainly engaged in the trust of real estate and business related thereto, and entered into a real estate security trust agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the trust agreement of this case"), the main purpose of which is to preserve and manage the instant trust real estate in order to guarantee the liability and liability to be borne by KimA to be performed by the first beneficiary by designating the truster, beneficiary, debtor, KimA, and trustee (hereinafter referred to as "O real estate trust") as the mutual savings bank of △△△△△, with respect to a total of 34 sections of exclusive ownership (hereinafter referred to as "the instant trusted real estate"), including the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the instant attached real estate price), among the aggregate buildings located in Kim Jong-dong and 00, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant trust real estate in its name due to the instant trust agreement on the same day.

(2) On November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the beneficiary and debtor under the instant trust agreement to change the beneficiary and debtor from KimA-A-A-A-U-U-U-U-U-U.S.

B. On September 29, 2009, the defendant seized the seized real estate of this case (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") based on delinquent tax claims (hereinafter referred to as "tax claims of this case") as shown below against KimA on September 29, 2009, and accordingly, on October 12, 2009, the registration of seizure was completed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

In this case where the plaintiff sought nullification of the above disposition on the ground that the disposition of this case is about the trustee's property, which is the third party's property, and thus it is reasonable to nullify the above disposition, the defendant asserts to the effect that even if there is a defect in the disposition of this case, it is merely a ground for revocation and cannot be viewed as a ground for invalidation. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it constitutes a case

B. Determination

On the other hand, the lawsuit of this case is related to the third party's property, and thus, it is sought confirmation on the premise that the disposition of this case is void as a matter of course. The invalidity of the disposition of this case is not necessary to go through the procedure of the previous trial because anyone can assert it at any time outside of the lawsuit or litigation, and there is no limit on the period of the lawsuit

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition that attached the instant trusted, which is the Plaintiff’s entrusted property, based on the instant taxation claim against KimA, was made in violation of Article 24(1) of the National Tax Collection Act setting the object of seizure as the taxpayer’s property, and Article 21(1) of the Trust Act prohibiting compulsory execution against trust property, and thus, is unlawful, and thus, is significant and apparent.

(b) Related statutes;

C. Determination

(1) According to the provisions of Article 24 of the National Tax Number Act, which provides for the requirements for seizure as a disposition on default, in any case or where the subject matter of seizure is limited to the taxpayer’s property, a disposition of seizure against a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, shall not be legally realized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da68924, Feb. 23, 2001). Furthermore, if a trust relationship is established between the parties by transferring the ownership of real estate to the trustee and the parties pursuant to the Trust Act, the trust property shall not be deemed the truster’s property after it is reverted to the trustee, and thus, even if the truster of trust property is a taxpayer, seizure against the trust property attributed to the trustee based on the truster’s tax claim against the truster shall not be effective as a seizure against the third party’s property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17424, Oct. 1

As seen earlier, since the instant trusted real estate was trusted to the Plaintiff by KimA, it is the Plaintiff’s property, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant against the instant trusted real estate, which is the Plaintiff’s property based on the tax claim against KimA, is null and void since it is a seizure disposition against the third party’s property.

(2) In addition, since a compulsory execution is prohibited against the trust property under the main sentence of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act, the instant disposition against the instant deposited real property, which is the deposited real property, is null and void.

According to the proviso of Article 21(1) of the Trust Act, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful because the tax claims against the defendant's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company's insurance company

On the other hand, the "right arising from the management and disposal of trust property" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act includes not only the right arising from the management and disposal of trust property (such as expenses and claim for damages by a trustee under Article 42 of the Trust Act, and claim for remuneration under Article 43 of the same Act) but also the taxation right on trust property, which is a right attributable to the trust property itself. However, as seen above, when a trust relationship is established under the Trust Act, the trust property shall belong to the trustee, and it shall not be subject to seizure of the trust property under the truster's name. Thus, the taxation right on trust, which is exceptionally subject to compulsory execution under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act, shall be deemed to mean only the taxation right imposed on the trustee. Therefore, the taxation right in this case against Kim A, the truster, does not fall under the "right arising from the management and disposal of trust property" under the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Trust Act, and the above argument by the defendant is justified.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is a seizure against a third party’s property that is not a delinquent taxpayer without legitimate grounds, and its defect is serious and apparent.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.