Article 41 (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

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

A. The Plaintiff did not pay global income tax of KRW 17,679.760 imposed as the payment period on April 30, 1999 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”).

B. On May 25, 1999, the defendant seized ○○○○○○○ apartment Adong ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○dong, which is owned by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff dismissed the attachment on January 10, 2006 that the plaintiff would completely pay the delinquent amount until February 10, 2006.

C. However, on February 10, 2006, the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears even until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again issued a disposition of this case on February 23, 2006, which attached the Plaintiff’s rent claim against the Plaintiff, who was the lessee of the building located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a building located in the ○○○○○○○○○○, a lessee of the building located in the ○○○○○○○○○○, a largest △△△△, △△,

[Grounds for Recognition] A. 2-8. A. 2-1, 2, and 3.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since five years have passed since the date when the Defendant had the right to collect the global income tax of this case from around 1999, the instant disposition was unlawful since it had already been made after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national tax.

(2) The notice of the attachment of claims served by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, etc. while rendering the instant disposition is merely a document printed out by the public official in charge upon electronic resolution, and it cannot be deemed legitimate as it did not affix the Defendant’s official seal, etc. Therefore, the notice of attachment of claims in an unlawful document is deemed null and void, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Basic Act

Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of Right to Collection of National Taxes)

(1) Any right of the State to collect national taxes shall be extinguished by prescription, if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is exercisable.

Article 28 Interruption and Suspension of Prescription

(1) The extinctive prescription under Article 27 shall be interrupted by any of the following reasons:

1. A tax payment notice;

2. Urging or demand for payment;

3. Request for delivery;

4. Seizure.

(2) The extinctive prescription interrupted under paragraph (1) shall resume when the period under each of the following subparagraphs expires:

1. Period of payment notified;

2. Period fixed by urging or demand notice of payment;

3. Period specified in the request for delivery;

4. Period until seizure is cancelled.

National Tax Collection Act

Article 24 Requirements for Attachment

(1) The tax officials shall seize the taxpayer's properties in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where the taxpayer fails to pay completely national taxes and the additional dues by the designated period after receiving a notice of demand (including a peremptory notice; hereinafter the same shall apply);

Article 41. Procedures for Attachment of Claims

(1) In seizing claims, the director of the tax office shall notify it to the obligor.

(3) If the attachment is made under paragraph (1), the director of the tax office shall notify it to the defaulted taxpayer.

Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

Article 44 Notice of Attachment of Claims

(1) The notification of seizure of claims under Article 41 (1) of the Act shall be made in writing with the following matters stated:

1. Domicile or temporary domicile, and name of the defaulted taxpayer;

2. The taxable year, tax item, and tax amount related to the seizure and the deadline for payment of national taxes;

3. Type and amount of the claims attached; and

4. Matters prohibited from performing obligations to the defaulted taxpayer with respect to the claims under subparagraph 3, and ordering tax officials to pay them;

(2) The notification of seizure of claims under Article 41 (3) of the Act shall be made in writing with the following matters stated:

1. The domicile or temporary domicile and name of the debtor;

2. The taxable year, tax item, and tax amount related to the seizure and the deadline for payment of national taxes;

3. Type and amount of the claims attached; and

4. Date of seizure.

C. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s attachment of the apartment owned by the Plaintiff on May 25, 199 on the instant global income tax, the payment period of which was April 30, 1999, and released the attachment on January 10, 2006. Thus, the statute of limitations on the instant global income tax collection right was interrupted at the time of the attachment of an apartment, and it again run from January 10, 2006, when it was cancelled. Therefore, it is apparent that the Defendant issued the instant disposition prior to the completion of the statute of limitations on the collection right, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) On the second argument

According to the above evidence and Eul 1's statements, the defendant's internal electronic resolution process and stated the contents and procedure under Article 44 (1) 1 and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act with respect to the plaintiff who is a delinquent taxpayer and his debtor pursuant to Article 41 (1) and (3) of the same Act and notified the seizure of claims. Thus, the contents and procedure are lawful. In preparing the notice of seizure of claims, the defendant must obtain approval in writing which is not an electronic approval method, but an electronic approval method, or the defendant's official seal shall not be affixed to the notice of seizure of claims. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18390 ( November 15, 2007)]

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu6542, August 22, 2007]

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

A. The Plaintiff failed to pay the global income tax of 17,679,760 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”) among the global income tax attributed to the year 197, which was finalized through several revisions procedures.

B. On May 25, 199, the Defendant released the attachment of this case on January 10, 2006, which was owned by the Plaintiff, after attaching 00-0 ○○○○○○dong 00,000 ○○ apartment (hereinafter “the attachment of this case”), the Plaintiff would pay in full the delinquent amount until February 10, 2006.

C. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again issued the instant disposition on February 23, 2006 against the Plaintiff’s rent claim against the ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○, and ○, Kim○, and ○, a lessee of a building located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, 00-0, which is again owned by the Plaintiff.

(In fact that there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1-2 through 8, 2-2, 3, 10-1, 10-1, 10-1, 1-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since five years have passed since the date on which the Defendant was able to exercise the right to collect the global income tax of this case, the instant disposition is unlawful as it had already been made after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax.

(2) According to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, when the taxpayer does not pay completely national taxes and the additional dues by the designated time limit after receiving a notice of demand (including a notice of demand), the taxpayer's property may be seized. Even if the defendant made the seizure of this case on May 25, 199, according to each description of subparagraphs 5-1 and 2, the fact that the defendant issued a demand notice on the 26th of the same month after the seizure can be acknowledged. Thus, the seizure of this case is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements.

(3) The notice of the attachment of claims served by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, etc. while rendering the instant disposition is merely a document printed out by the public official in charge upon electronic resolution, and it cannot be deemed legitimate as it did not affix the Defendant’s official seal, etc. Therefore, the notice of attachment of claims based on an unlawful document, as seen above, shall be deemed null and void. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Basic Act

Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of Right to Collection of National Taxes)

(1) Any right of the State to collect national taxes shall be extinguished by prescription, if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is exercisable.

Article 28 Interruption and Suspension of Prescription

(1) The extinctive prescription under Article 27 shall be interrupted by any of the following reasons:

1. A tax payment notice;

2. Urging or demand for payment;

3. Request for delivery;

4. Seizure.

(2) The extinctive prescription interrupted under paragraph (1) shall resume when the period under each of the following subparagraphs expires:

1. Period of payment notified;

2. Period fixed by urging or demand notice of payment;

3. Period specified in the request for delivery;

4. Period until seizure is cancelled.

National Tax Collection Act

Article 24 Requirements for Attachment

(1) The tax officials shall seize the taxpayer's properties in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where the taxpayer fails to pay completely national taxes and the additional dues by the designated period after receiving a notice of demand (including a peremptory notice; hereinafter the same shall apply);

Article 41. Procedures for Attachment of Claims

(1) In seizing claims, the director of the tax office shall notify it to the obligor.

(3) If the attachment is made under paragraph (1), the director of the tax office shall notify it to the defaulted taxpayer.

Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act

Article 44 Notice of Attachment of Claims

(1) The notification of seizure of claims under Article 41 (1) of the Act shall be made in writing with the following matters stated:

1. Domicile or temporary domicile, and name of the defaulted taxpayer;

2. The taxable year, tax item, and tax amount related to the seizure and the deadline for payment of national taxes;

3. Type and amount of the claims attached; and

4. Matters prohibited from performing obligations to the defaulted taxpayer with respect to the claims under subparagraph 3, and ordering tax officials to pay them;

(2) The notification of seizure of claims under Article 41 (3) of the Act shall be made in writing with the following matters stated:

1. The domicile or temporary domicile and name of the debtor;

2. The taxable year, tax item, and tax amount related to the seizure and the deadline for payment of national taxes;

3. Type and amount of the claims attached; and

4. Date of seizure.

C. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

As seen earlier, the Defendant seized the apartment owned by the Plaintiff on May 25, 199 with respect to the instant global income tax, and released the attachment on January 10, 2006. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the instant global income tax collection right is to run again from January 10, 2006, when the apartment was interrupted at the time of the attachment of the apartment and the cancellation thereof. Therefore, it is apparent that the Defendant rendered the instant disposition prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the collection right, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) On the second argument

In an administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proof with respect to the legality of disposition and the existence of the facts requiring taxation. However, with respect to the existence of special circumstances belonging to this example according to the empirical rule, the burden of proof or the burden of proof must be returned to the taxpayer. As seen earlier, it shall be presumed in light of the empirical rule that the defendant urged the payment in the course of establishing the global income tax of this case through several correction procedures prior to the seizure of this case. Thus, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not receive a demand notice on the payment of the global income tax of this case prior to the seizure of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is insufficient to acknowledge only the items of evidence 5-1 and 2

(3) On the third argument

According to the above evidence, the defendant's internal electronic resolution procedure and the plaintiff and its debtor who are delinquent in accordance with Article 41 (1) and (3) of the National Tax Collection Act can be acknowledged that the defendant notified the seizure of claims by entering the contents of Article 44 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in accordance with Article 41 (1) and (3) of the same Act. Thus, the contents and procedure of the notification are lawful. In preparing the notification of seizure of claims, the defendant must obtain approval in writing, not in electronic form, or affix the defendant's official seal to the notification of seizure of claims. Thus,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.