Daegu District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-20271 (Law No. 23, 2017)

Attachment of trust property vested in a trustee shall be null and void.

The attachment of this case is against the trust property belonging to the trustee domestically and externally, and the attachment disposition against the plaintiff's property other than the taxpayer is not a legal realization of the content of the disposition, and thus constitutes a legal invalidation.

Article 22 of the Trust Act

2017Nu632 Invalidity of attachment disposition

Mass

d) The Director of the Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 2017Guhap20271 Decided August 23, 2017

2018.03.16

2018.04.06

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

It is confirmed that each attachment disposition of October 14, 2014, November 12, 2015, and December 21, 2015, issued by the Defendant with respect to Gg Development is null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the reasoning of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded the instant trust contract with the non-party company and received the instant sales claim and deposit claim trust from the non-party company. On April 17, 2013, the non-party company notified the Plaintiff, a debtor, of the transfer of the instant deposit claim with a certified fixed date. Accordingly, the Defendant’s attachment disposition on the instant deposit claim was made against a third party’s property, not a taxpayer, and thus is null and void.

B. The defendant's main defense

Since the Defendant released each of the instant seizure dispositions on March 8, 2018, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

C. Determination

Before determining the plaintiff's assertion, we examine the defendant's defense of safety.

On March 8, 2018, the Defendant’s revocation of each of the instant seizure dispositions on March 8, 2018, while the instant lawsuit is pending, is apparent in the record. As such, the Plaintiff has no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the instant seizure dispositions. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and the Defendant’s defense of safety is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is so unfair that the conclusion is different, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed, and the total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant pursuant to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation