Attachment of the property owned by the registration titleholder shall be disposed of lawfully;

The registration of ownership transfer based on donation was completed, and it can be recognized that the land was registered as the owner of the land of this case until the time of the seizure disposition of this case. Thus, the land of this case is deemed to be owned by the holder of the registered title at the time of the seizure disposition of this case

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Suwon District Court 2015Guhap64658 ( October 12, 2016)

Kim*

○ Head of tax office

August 24, 2016

oly 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 6, 2014, the attachment disposition that was made by the defendant of the Gu office on the 1,985 square meters of the Gu office on the b. B. 1418-1 square meters of the b. b. 1418-1 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Parkc has reported the marriage with Kimd on March 15, 1995, and the plaintiff was born between Park C and Kimd on February 5, 1996.

B. On April 20, 2009, Parkc has filed a lawsuit of divorce against Kimd on April 20, 2009, and on November 10, 2009, between Parkc and Kimddd, 'Pream and Kimdd' have been divorced. Kimd' has been established a mediation (hereinafter referred to as the "instant mediation") with the following contents: "The defendant imposed on Kimd's transfer income tax on the plaintiff on November 10, 209 18,1418-1,985 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "the land in this case"), the e-mail, the e-mail, the 741, 391, and 3,913,8 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "instant mediation"). (The defendant seized the land in this case upon the seizure of 18,957,160, 301, hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the attachment disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Between Park cc and Kimdd, as a division of property following divorce, the conciliation was established that Kimdd transferred the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff. Since the instant conciliation protocol has a formative effect, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Act. The instant attachment disposition is illegal and void as it was the attachment of the Plaintiff’s property, not the taxpayer Kimddd.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In light of the provisions of Article 24 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act, which provides for the requirements for seizure as a disposition for arrears, the disposition of seizure against a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, is limited to the taxpayer’s property. As such, the disposition of seizure against a third party’s property, which is not a taxpayer, is not legally feasible (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du4612, Apr. 12, 2012). Meanwhile, the judgment in the method of acquiring real rights, which is not required for registration under Article 187 of the Civil Act, is limited to the judgment itself, and the formative effect of real right acquisition of real estate is limited to the judgment itself, and it does not include the same judgment or protocol of adjustment, the content of which is the same as ordering the execution of procedures for transferring the ownership of real estate due to legal acts between the parties, and is not subject to the same (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Da1721, Aug. 17, 1965; 82.).

In this case, the fact that Kimdd's conciliation of the content that Kimd's transfer of the ownership of the land of this case to the Plaintiff was completed is recognized in the preceding 1th of the disposition. However, according to the evidence No. 1, Kimd's statement, Kimd's completion of the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on June 2, 200, and it can be recognized that the land of this case was registered as the owner of the land of this case until the time of the seizure disposition of this case. The seizure disposition of this case is deemed to be owned by Kimd's owner at the time of the seizure of this case. The seizure disposition of this case is legitimate as it is the seizure of the property of Kimd', the taxpayer. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Choi*

Judges Kim*

Judges Hong*

Relevant statutes

【National Tax Collection Act

Article 24 (Attachment)

(1) The head of a tax office (in cases of delinquent taxpayers determined by Presidential Decree, considering the delinquent period and amount.

The Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall include the Commissioner of the National Tax Service; hereinafter the same shall apply) in any of the following cases:

of the United States of America.

1. The taxpayer shall pay completely national taxes and the additional dues by the designated period after receiving a notice of demand (including a peremptory notice);

not required by the court.

2. A taxpayer shall be notified of payment before the payment period under Article 14 (1) and shall not pay in full by the designated period;

(i) the end;