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

Cheong-gu Office

1. On May 22, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the determination of the amount in arrears of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the notice of arrears and the notice of attachment notice given to the Plaintiff is invalid.

3. The defendant will cancel the attachment registration completed by the O district court No. 558 on January 18, 2003, with respect to the 000-0 00-0 2m2, OO-dong, O-gu, O-si, O-si, O-si, O-si, O-si.

A. As to 00/100 of 000 of 000 square meters of OAdong AAdong A, 000-00 square meters (hereinafter “Adong land of this case”), the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name was completed on June 17, 1980 under O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch, but the registration of ownership transfer under BB was completed on April 24, 1994 as the receipt of BB branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O branch of O

B. As to the OOO-gu OCC 279-2 6m2 road (hereinafter “CC-dong land”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on March 9, 1978 under the O district court OO-O branch office No. 22046 on March 9, 1978, and on January 18, 2003, the registration of seizure was completed under the name of the Republic of Korea (Otax secretary in the Disposition Office) [the grounds for registration: the seizure was completed on January 13, 2003 (hereinafter “the seizure registration of this case”); hereinafter “the seizure registration of this case”).

C. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would seize the Plaintiff’s deposit claims, wage claims, etc. (hereinafter “instant notification”) pursuant to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act in cases where the Plaintiff did not pay one capital gains tax, the amount in arrears is KRW 000 as of May 22, 2014, and the amount in arrears is KRW 000 as of June 13, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 12, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including the number with each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the obligation to pay capital gains tax on the instant land has ceased to exist due to the lapse of five years after the statutory return and payment deadline, a disposition that the Defendant determined the Plaintiff’s delinquent amount of capital gains tax at KRW 000 won on May 22, 2014, and a disposition that notified the Plaintiff on May 23, 2014 to the Plaintiff on the same day, and a disposition that notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of attachment on the same day is null and void. Furthermore, since both the land AA Dong andCC Dong were purchased or sold in the Plaintiff’s name before the Plaintiff’s birth, each of the above dispositions against the Plaintiff, who is not the actual owner, is null and void in violation of the substance over form doctrine. Moreover, the registration of attachment of this case is based on an invalid taxation, and thus ought to be revoked.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The part of each claim for nullification

The term "administrative disposition", which is the subject of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which directly changes in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under Acts and subordinate statutes, or giving rise to other legal effects with respect to a specific matter, and an act, etc. which does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other interested persons, such as actions inside the administrative agency or de facto notification, cannot be subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du18362, Sept. 11,

In addition, where a disposition agency urges the payment of taxes, etc. that can be collected under the National Tax Collection Act and then urges the same payment again, only the first demand is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation as a collection disposition. The same demand thereafter is a collection disposition that is a premise for a disposition on default, and it is merely a simple peremptory notice under the Civil Act, not a demand that serves as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription, and thus does not directly affect the rights and obligations or legal status of the people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu119, Jul. 13, 199; 2009Du14507, Dec. 24, 2009).

First of all, the part of the instant lawsuit regarding the claim to nullify the invalidity of the disposition on the amount of delinquent local taxes rendered on May 22, 2014 is deemed lawful. Even if the Defendant internally calculated the amount of the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax at KRW 000 as of May 22, 2014, it is merely an internal act of the Defendant’s administrative agency and cannot be said to change the Plaintiff’s rights, obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be subject to an appeal litigation. Therefore, the part on the claim to confirm the invalidity of the disposition on the amount of delinquent local taxes rendered on May 22, 2014 among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

Next, we examine the legitimacy of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the notification of arrears on May 23, 2014 among the instant lawsuit. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s seizure of the instant land registered under the name of the Plaintiff on January 13, 2003 and the completion of the registration of seizure on January 18, 2003 can be sufficiently confirmed that the demand procedure had been prior to the procedure for the aforementioned disposition of arrears. Accordingly, the Defendant’s notification of arrears as of May 23, 2014, seeking cancellation as the instant lawsuit, is not the first demand under the National Tax Collection Act, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s notification of arrears as of May 23, 2014 directly affects the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. Accordingly, the part seeking confirmation of invalidity of the notification of arrears as of May 23, 2014 among the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

Furthermore, as to the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the pre-announcement of attachment as of May 23, 2014, the Defendant’s pre-announcement of attachment does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, and the Defendant’s defense that this part of the lawsuit is unlawful. As seen earlier, the pre-announcement of attachment issued by the Defendant on May 23, 2014 merely notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff would seize the Plaintiff’s deposit claim, payment claim, etc. if the Plaintiff did not pay the amount of taxes in arrears within a given period, the notification of the pre-announcement of attachment would be merely notification of the fact that the Plaintiff would seize the Plaintiff’s deposit claim, payment claim, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the notification of attachment directly affects the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations or legal status. Therefore, the pre-announcement of attachment cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation. Therefore, the part

B. Claim for cancellation of attachment registration

Under the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to render a certain administrative disposition or a lawsuit seeking a formation judgment ordering an administrative agency to directly conduct an administrative disposition having the same effect as the administrative agency rendered a certain administrative disposition is not permissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, Sept. 30, 197). Of the instant lawsuit, the part seeking cancellation of the seizure registration constitutes a performance lawsuit seeking a performance judgment seeking an execution judgment ordering the Defendant, who is an administrative agency, to actively conduct a certain act, and is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.