압류처분무효확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the following contents among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420
(1) On Chapter 2, "(1)" shall be added to the first head of Chapter 18.
(2) On the third side, the following shall be added:
(2) The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the attachment after the registration of the instant attachment. Since the registration of the attachment was made on three real estate owned by the Plaintiff as a result of the disposition on default following the instant disposition, it is in violation of Article 33-2 of the former National Tax Collection Act prohibiting excessive attachment. In this respect, the instant disposition is null and void as the defect is significant and obvious. In this regard, the instant disposition is null and void as it is in a significant and obvious sense. ③ “The judgment on the first page of the Plaintiff is added to “2” and it is changed.
(4) On the 5th page, the following shall be added:
Article 45(1) of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that "the head of a tax office shall request the competent registry office to register the seizure of a real estate when it is to seize the real estate." Meanwhile, according to Articles 45(4) and 41(3), when the seizure of a real estate is completed, the head of a tax office shall notify the delinquent taxpayer of the seizure. However, as long as the registration of the seizure of a real estate is completed, the seizure does not become null and void merely because the delinquent taxpayer was not notified of the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3282, Aug. 25, 1995). In addition, where a tax official seizes a taxpayer's property to collect national taxes, the value of the property exceeds the amount of national taxes to be collected.
the seizure is not a disposition to nullify the seizure as a matter of course.
Supreme Court Decision 198Do145 delivered on November 1, 1986