In the event that the property subject to seizure is registered, whether it belongs to the taxpayer's ownership shall be determined by the validity of registration.

Externally, it should be deemed that the co-ownership of the delinquent taxpayer, who is the trustee, belongs to the co-ownership in accordance with the legal principles of title trust, so long as the State externally seizes the delinquent taxpayer's co-ownership, and the attachment disposition is valid, and even if the transfer registration has been completed to the title truster after the attachment disposition, there is no reason to deny

2012 Ghana 9565 Seizure and Cancellation of Registration

LAA 9 persons

Korea

December 6, 2012

January 10, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant, the defendant, with respect to the land listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the plaintiff mostA, the lowestB, and the lowestCC, and with respect to the land listed in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the plaintiff EEmp paper, and with respect to the land listed in paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the plaintiff EEmp paper, with respect to the land listed in paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the plaintiff EEmp paper, with respect to the land listed in paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the plaintiff Emp paper, and with respect to the land listed in paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the plaintiff Emp paper, and with respect to the land listed in paragraph 8 of the Schedule to the plaintiff Emp, the registration procedure for cancellation of each seizure completed by the plaintiff Emp on September 2, 1998.

1. Basic facts

A. The land before the division was registered as co-owners, including the Kim II, and the Kim II did not pay national taxes in excess of KRW 00,000, and the defendant completed the attachment registration (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of attachment registration of this case") with the head of Suwon District Court on August 27, 1998 received on September 2, 1998 as the head of Suwon District Court on September 2, 1998 as to 250/17950 of the shares of Kim II in the land before the division of this case as the head of Suwon District Court on September 2, 1998 as the head of Suwon District Court on September 2, 1998.

B. Since then, each land listed in the separate sheet is divided into the land before the division of this case, and each land listed in the separate sheet paragraphs 2 through 8, the registration of the seizure of this case remains in force, and the land listed in the separate sheet paragraph 1 remains in the land listed in the separate sheet.

C. Plaintiff LA, LB, and LCC are the land listed in paragraph 1 of the annexed Schedule, Plaintiff EEM is the land listed in paragraph 2 of the annexed Schedule, Plaintiff EEF is the land listed in paragraph 3 of the annexed Schedule, Plaintiff EEF is the land listed in paragraph 4 of the annexed Schedule, Plaintiff H is the land listed in paragraph 5 of the annexed Schedule, Plaintiff LH is the land listed in paragraph 6 of the annexed Schedule, Plaintiff LH is the land listed in paragraph 7 of the annexed Schedule, and Plaintiff H is the owner of each land listed in paragraph 8 of the annexed Schedule.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The land before the instant partition was in a sectionally owned co-ownership relationship among co-owners, including Kim II, and on the ground of the termination of mutual title trust, the Plaintiffs owned each land listed in the separate sheet as stated in the aforementioned facts-findingb. However, since the instant attachment registration interferes with the Plaintiffs’ respective ownership due to the instant attachment registration, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the instant attachment registration.

3. Determination

If the property subject to attachment is a real estate registered, the issue of whether the property belongs to the taxpayer's ownership should be determined by the validity of registration. If the co-ownership registration in the delinquent person's name on the property subject to attachment is made through the title trust based on the trust's will, it should be considered that the truster's ownership is held in the Republic of Korea, and externally, the co-ownership of the delinquent person's co-ownership belongs to the trustee's co-ownership in accordance with the legal principles of title trust. As long as the State externally belongs to the delinquent person's co-ownership, and the attachment of the property is valid, and even if the transfer registration is made to the truster after the attachment, the attachment disposition does not have any reason to deny the validity of the attachment disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu506, Apr. 24, 1984). In light of the above legal principles in this case, there is no evidence that the defendant acquired the right to co-ownership of the above land before the attachment registration, and as long as there is no other evidence that the plaintiff's co-ownership's co-ownership relation between the above land second co-ownership.

4. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.