A purchaser of a real estate registered for attachment cannot assert the illegality of the attachment disposition.

As a purchaser of a real estate registered for attachment has an indirect interest in the attachment disposition, and does not have a direct and specific interest in the law, the purchaser shall not be qualified as the plaintiff to seek the nullification of the attachment disposition.

Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On September 27, 2005, the Defendant confirmed that the attachment disposition on the ○○○-dong 705-○○○ 972.9 square meters is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 5, 2001, Nonparty 1 purchased 838.71/9 shares from the Korea Water Resources Corporation on the ○○○-dong 705-○ 972.9 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) in Ansan-si ○○○-dong 705-○○ 972.9 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”), and completed the construction of the 4th floor and the 1st underground floor neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “○○ Center”) on the ground, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in its own name on January 15, 2003. However, the instant land was not registered as the site right of the above ○○ Center.

B. On June 14, 2003, the non-party 1 purchased 301 stories from the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, and

C. However, on January 6, 2005, the ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of Nonparty 1 838.71 with respect to the land in this case on the ground that part of the above shares was registered as the site ownership for a part of the building in ○○○○. However, the partial shares (408.92 shares in 408.92, hereinafter referred to as “the corresponding site ownership shares in this case”) corresponding to the site ownership for the building in this case remains in the name of ○○. The Defendant seized the corresponding share of the site ownership in this case on September 27, 2005 and completed the attachment registration on September 29, 2005 on the ground that it did not pay global income tax for the year 2004 for Nonparty 1.

D. On January 14, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the building of this case from the ○○○ and Gangwon-do, completed a registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the above section of exclusive ownership, and completed a registration of ownership transfer with respect to the pertinent section of exclusive ownership. At the same time, the right to site of this case has

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The defendant asserts that the attachment disposition of this case was not a party seeking nullification or revocation of the attachment disposition of this case against the plaintiff, since it was before the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building of this case as of September 27, 2005.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff has standing to sue, since it is not merely a person to whom the ownership of the seized real estate was transferred, but is unable to exercise the property right due to the instant seizure disposition in violation of the relevant statutes.

B. Determination

After the tax authority seizes real estate owned by a taxpayer for the collection of taxes, a person who purchased the real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer after the tax authority purchased it shall have a substantial and indirect interest in the above seizure disposition, and shall not have a direct and specific interest in the law, so the plaintiff shall not be eligible to seek nullification of the seizure disposition.

However, as long as the Plaintiff had been much more than before acquiring ownership of the building of this case, the Defendant’s seizure disposition of this case and the registration of seizure of this case’s portion of the site of this case in order to collect national taxes in arrears, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed entitled to seek confirmation of the seizure disposition of this case, and it does not change on the ground that the seizure disposition of this case may interfere with the exercise of the right to use the site of this case’s land (the Plaintiff has filed an application for cancellation of attachment under Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act, and if the Defendant refused such application, it is necessary to seek revocation of the seizure disposition, or to seek cancellation of the seizure registration based on the above seizure disposition by civil procedure).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a person who has no standing to sue, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.