피고에게 위법한 직무집행행위가 있었다고 보기 어려움[국승]
Suwon District Court Decision 2015-Gab-269 ( October 09, 2015)
It is difficult to deem that there was an unlawful performance of duties against the defendant
In light of the defendant's business, it is difficult to see that the defendant committed an unlawful act of execution of his duties, and since the registration of seizure of real estate owned by the corporation cannot be cancelled due to the payment
Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act
2015Na26488 Claims for Damages
Park AA
Republic of Korea, e.B
Suwon District Court Decision 2015Ra269 Decided July 9, 2015
December 17, 2015
January 21, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 68,418,400 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person retired while working in theCC City Forestry Cooperatives (hereinafter “the instant union”), and the Defendant BB is a public official working in the DP income tax and the income tax under the Defendant’s jurisdiction from February 27, 2007 to February 16, 2008, and Kim E is a representative of the FFF (hereinafter “FFFF”).
B. FF completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 4, 1998 for sale and purchase of D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. 00-0 74m2 (hereinafter “instant land”), D. D. D. D. D. D. D. D. 00-00 m27m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and D. 1127m2 (hereinafter “D. 2”) on the instant land 40,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000 m. (hereinafter “the instant land”). The Association completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land d. 17. 1985 m25.
D. At the request of the instant association, on September 9, 2009, the Suwon District Court in the case of auction of real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction case”) No. 11193, 2009 for the land No. 1 through 4 of the instant case commenced on September 9, 2009, Daehan submitted a written claim against the delinquent taxpayer for FFF, the claimed amount of KRW 00,000,000 on August 6, 2010. On October 25, 2010, Suwon District Court prepared a distribution schedule containing the following contents as to KRW 00,000,000 for actual dividends:
E. After that, on April 24, 2013, the Disciplinary Action Committee, which belongs to the instant association, decided to punish the Plaintiff and compensate for the amount of KRW 00,000,000, on the ground that the Plaintiff was responsible for enormous damages caused to the instant association due to significant factual issues related to the instant loan, etc. Accordingly, on July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 68,418,400 (hereinafter “instant indemnity”).
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
Around February 4, 2008, Defendant B, who is a public official under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, provided that the pertinent seizure registration may be cancelled if he paid the amount of the FF’s national tax in arrears at KRW 0,000,000, and the amount of the above delinquent tax would be paid only when he paid the amount of the FF’s national tax in arrears. In addition, before the instant loan, Defendant B provided direct confirmation of the fact that the FF’s national tax in arrears was paid in full and the scheduled cancellation of the instant seizure registration. Accordingly, on April 8, 2008, the Plaintiff committed the instant loan with the belief that the FFF’s national tax in arrears was completely paid in full and thus, Defendant B did not incur damages to the Plaintiff, which is a public official under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, due to Defendant B’s gross negligence or gross negligence, and thus, Defendant B did not incur damages to the Plaintiff due to Defendant B’s breach of its duty to collect from the FFF’s national tax in arrears.
B. Determination
First, in the process of the instant loan, we examine whether Defendant B, who is a public official of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, committed such unlawful act as alleged by the Plaintiff’s assertion.
The evidence No. 1-5, Gap evidence No. 2-1-2, Eul evidence No. 2-3, Eul evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 2-2, Eul evidence No. 3-4, Eul evidence No. 3-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence No. 1-2, i.e., the defendant BB received from the Dose Office about the national taxes in arrears of Kim GG from the Dose Office on February 2008, and notified KimE of the fact of delinquency in payment of the global income tax amount of 2,779,440 won in the Kim GG's 2,00,000 won in global income tax of Kim GG, including damages for late April 8, 2008.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.