A person claiming that a seized bond belongs to himself/herself has no legal interest in seeking revocation or confirmation of invalidation of the seizure disposition.

The Plaintiff, who asserts that he is a beneficial shareholder, can still exercise the shareholder’s right premised on the fact that he is a beneficial shareholder despite the instant disposition. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case was subject to any infringement of rights or legal interests.

2016Guhap6122 Action for nullification of seizure

AAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 30, 2016

November 18, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On January 14, 2002, the defendant confirmed that the attachment disposition of the shares listed in the separate sheet against the non-party ○○ is invalid.

1. Basic facts

A. ○○○ Packaging Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Packaging”) is a corporation established on May 15, 1995 in order to conduct an engineering work business.

B. From 197 to 130,000 shares issued by the ○○○ Medal, ○○○○ is indicated as a shareholder holding 6,500 shares of 130,000 shares of the total number of shares issued by the ○○○○ Medal, and the remaining 123,50 shares of 123,50 shares are indicated as holding by the Plaintiff’s father-○○ and his relatives.

C. On January 14, 2002, the Defendant seized the shares of this case on the ground that ○○ was delinquent in value-added tax, income tax, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

With respect to the instant lawsuit purporting that the actual owner of the instant shares is the Plaintiff, and that the instant disposition is null and void as an attachment against the Plaintiff’s property, a third party, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff, which was not verified as a beneficial owner of the instant shares, cannot be subject to legal interests due to the instant disposition, and thus, cannot be said to have direct and specific legal interests

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Since the seizure of claims is only a relative effect between an execution creditor and a debtor, if a seized claim belongs to a third party’s right other than a taxpayer, such seizure disposition is no longer effective as it is the seizure of a claim that does not exist. Since a claim that does not belong to a taxpayer does not have any influence on the legal relationship with the third party debtor of the third party who is the real right holder even if a claim that does not belong to a taxpayer is seized, a third party may dispose of the claim, claim the performance of the obligation to a third party, and the third party debtor shall not be prohibited from performing the obligation to a third party. Therefore, a person who claims that the seized claim belongs to himself/herself as a right of the tax authority regarding the disposition of seizure does not have any legal interest in seeking the revocation or nullification of the seizure disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4959, Jul. 9,

○○○○○ packaging appears to have failed to issue the share certificates of the instant shares. The instant disposition did not attach ○○○○○○○○○○’s share certificates, but rather seizes the shareholder rights of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○, based on the premise that ○○○○ is the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who asserts that ○○○○○ was a beneficial shareholder, may still exercise the shareholder rights on the instant ○○○ packaging, premised on the premise that ○○○○○○ is a beneficial shareholder, and thus, cannot be deemed to have

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, inasmuch as there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case, since the plaintiff applied for cancellation of the attachment of the shares of this case to the defendant on the premise that the shares of this case belong to himself and can be appealed by an appeal litigation against the rejection disposition.

3. Conclusion

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by