.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim is to confirm on March 4, 1996 that the attachment disposition made by the Defendant against the 268-8 large volume of 134 square meters, which is owned by the Plaintiff, is invalid.

Preliminary Claim: On August 28, 2015, the cancellation of attachment against the Plaintiff on August 28, 2015, the Defendant’s disposition to revoke the cancellation of attachment on a scale of 268-8 large scale 134 square meters against the Plaintiff.

A. On April 7, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred, on September 24, 1993, two parcels, including 174-1, 418 square meters, in Mad-si, Sin-si, Sin-si, and 1,65-2, 165-2, 974 square meters, respectively, to the Plaintiff; and (b) on December 31, 1995, the Defendant imposed KRW 26,763,580, capital gains tax on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”).

B. On March 4, 1996, when the Plaintiff did not pay the above capital gains tax, the Defendant seized approximately 134 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff on March 4, 199 (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s main defense against the conjunctive claim among the instant lawsuit

A. On September 12, 1998, the Plaintiff paid all the capital gains tax notified by the employee in charge of the Defendant, and applied for the cancellation of attachment on the land of this case. The said capital gains tax constitutes a cause of cancellation of attachment as it was written off, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for cancellation of attachment by giving notice of public auction on August 28, 2015, 199 years after the date of application for cancellation of attachment. Thus, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the cancellation of attachment.

B. According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the plaintiff was the defendant on September 12, 1998.

The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 158,740 among the capital gains tax, and the Defendant sent a notice of public auction to the Plaintiff on August 28, 2015 that the Plaintiff would still request a public auction on the instant land for the reason that the capital gains tax amounting to KRW 47,212,620 still remains in arrears. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for cancellation of attachment on September 12, 1998, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Furthermore, the notice of scheduled public auction is merely demanding the payment of delinquent taxes by notifying the delinquent taxpayer of the scheduled sale of the scheduled sale of the real estate, and it cannot be deemed a disposition rejecting the attachment. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff applied for cancellation of attachment on the instant land to the Defendant, and the Defendant expressed his intent to refuse the said request, and thus, it is unlawful as it is subject to a disposition of preliminary claim

3. Determination as to the main claim among the lawsuits of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant taxation disposition is not based on the lack of the tax payment notice (No. 1).

(Dissenting) Since the tax liability imposed after the instant attachment has ceased to exist due to the lapse of the tax liability (section 2). Therefore, the instant attachment disposition for executing invalid taxation is also null and void, and thus, the instant attachment disposition is sought to confirm the invalidity of the instant attachment disposition.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the confirmation of such invalidity, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010). The burden of proving that the administrative disposition was not served with a tax payment notice or served with another domicile in the litigation claiming that the taxation disposition is null and void because it was not served with a tax payment notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010; 97Nu8977, Feb. 13, 1998).

The whole pleadings are admitted in each of the above facts, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4.

In light of the following circumstances, ① the service of a tax notice is subject to the delivery, mail, or service by public notice pursuant to Articles 10 and 11 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996); ② the Plaintiff visited the Defendant on September 12, 1998 and paid KRW 158,740 out of the transfer income tax in arrears; ② the Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the registration of seizure of the instant land was not cancelled until about 17 years have passed thereafter; ③ the Defendant failed to submit a written resolution on the decision of the instant tax disposition or the service documents, but the instant tax disposition cannot be deemed to have been delivered only by the materials submitted by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s tax disposition becomes invalid on the premise that the documents submitted by the Plaintiff were not served.

2) Determination as to the second proposal

Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996)

Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010) amended on December 30, 1996 and enforced on the same day (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 201) excluded the "disposition" from the grounds for extinguishment of liability for tax payment. According to the purport of the written evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, it is acknowledged that the attachment disposition of this case was already executed on March 4, 1996, before the disposition of this case was executed on November 28, 1997, before the disposition of this case was conducted on November 28, 1997. As such, the obligation for tax payment of this case was not extinguished due to the disposition of this case since the disposition of this case was made after December 30, 1996, and it does not lose its validity due to the subsequent disposition of the disposition of this case.

3) Sub-decisions

Since the instant taxation disposition is lawful, the Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking the invalidation of the instant attachment disposition on the premise that the said disposition is null and void is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the conjunctive claim of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the main claim is without merit, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.