2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff, while the part arising from the participation by the Plaintiff is borne by the Intervenor.

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of "attached Form 2" attached to the judgment of the court of first instance to "attached Form 2 attached to this judgment". Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. We examine the preservation claim regarding the seizure of this case.

(1) We examine global income tax attributed to year 2007.

As the Defendant revoked the disposition on November 29, 2008, the global income tax of 40,050 won (based on principal; hereinafter the same shall apply) imposed and notified to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2008, which reverts to the year 2007, the Defendant revoked the disposition, this part of the Plaintiff’s tax liability does not exist.

(2) We examine global income tax for the year 2000.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, it is recognized that the amount included in the gross income of the non-party company in 2000 was leaked to the non-party company's representative director, and its attribution is unclear. Accordingly, it is deemed that the amount leaked under Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act was paid as bonus to the representative, and thus, according to the disposal method of the non-party company's income, 201,789,021 won calculated as the income amount in 200,000 among the non-party company's income amount in 1,056,487,026, is deemed as belonging to the non-party company's representative director, etc., and it is recognized that the amount reverted to the plaintiff's total income amount in 200,67,207,007 won (i.e., 200, 2000 won).

(3) We examine global income tax attributed to year 2001.

On January 3, 2007, the Defendant imposed and notified global income tax of KRW 32,683,910 on the Plaintiff’s income amount of KRW 156,88,913, and imposed and notified global income tax of KRW 32,683,910 on the Plaintiff’s income amount of KRW 156,88,913. On October 5, 2007, the amount of such global income was reduced to KRW 24,930,293, and the above comprehensive income tax was corrected to KRW 3,40,100, and the amount was regarded as the preserved claim for the attachment disposition of this case. This is premised on the premise that the non-party company received the income of KRW 821,407,922 on the land of this case and the compensation amount of KRW 112,726,80 on the land of this case, but the income amount was unclear in proportion to the period of service of the representative director of the non-party company.

However, in relation to the above auction land sale price of KRW 708,681,122, as seen above, the non-party company held its shares until the time when the registration of the decision to commence auction of the auction of this case was made, as stated in the above facts and the evidence Nos. 11 through 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings, but thereafter the shares were transferred to Kim Dong-dong on January 5, 2001.

Since at the time of October 20, 2001, it is recognized that the non-party company did not have any share in the auction land at the time of auction, the sale price of the above auction land cannot be viewed as the income of the non-party company, and the part seems to be excluded from the income of the non-party company in 2001.

On the other hand, the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (201. 201. 201. 201. 201. 201. 200

12. According to Article 11 subparagraph 6 of the Presidential Decree of 31, the reduced amount of debt incurred due to the extinguishment of debt is included in profits. Thus, even if the real estate was seized by the creditors of the owner before the transfer of the real estate and the profits from the transfer of the real estate was paid to all creditors, the owner of the real estate incurred income from the transfer of the real estate due to the extinction of debt, and the same applies to the expropriation. However, according to the purport of the evidence No. 10 and No. 13 of the above evidence and the whole arguments, the non-party company's compensation for expropriation of the land of this case was deposited as No. 99 of Daejeon District Court in April 16, 2004, which was requested to be paid to the non-party company for the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party's non-party's transfer of the real estate.

Therefore, if the income amount from the transfer of land in the year 2001 by the non-party company is limited to KRW 112,726,800 of the above compensation amount, and if the income amount of the non-party company was estimated in the year 2001 by the defendant according to the disposal method conducted by the non-party company, it would be 21,530,818 won (112,726,800 won X standard income rate 19.1%) and if it is reverted in proportion to the period of office of the plaintiff's representative director (from January 1, 201 to February 28, 2001), it would be 3,480,324 won (21,530,818 won).

Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to impose and notify the Plaintiff’s income amount of KRW 3,400,100 as global income tax for the year 2001 on the premise that it is KRW 24,930,293, and the legitimate global income tax for the year 2001 seems to have been significantly reduced (However, even if there is an error in this part of taxation as seen below, it cannot be deemed as an unlawful disposition of this case’s seizure, and there is no sufficient submission of materials for calculating the amount of tax in this case, so the specific amount of tax should not be separately calculated).

(4) Conclusion as to the effect of preservation claims and seizure

As long as a part of the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 32,638,910 of global income tax for the year 2000 and the global income tax for the year 2001 remains in arrears, the requirement of seizure under the National Tax Collection Act is satisfied and the need for preservation is recognized. Even if the Plaintiff’s tax obligation is somewhat different from the details presented as the preserved claim at the time of the Defendant’s notification of the seizure of property, the effect of the seizure cannot be denied unless there are most of the preserved claims subject to seizure or different essential contents in light of the fact that the specific details or amount of the seized claims under the National Tax Collection Act are not registered.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the amount of non-reported income exists in the non-party company, it is the non-party company subject to the imposition of taxes, the corporate tax liability to be borne by the non-party company is a comprehensive income tax, and the seizure of the Plaintiff’s property irrelevant to the non-party company is

However, the above argument cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

According to the above facts, the director of the tax office of South Korea estimated the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of income by the standard income rate of the non-party company's income in 2000 and 2001 on the ground that there is a non-party company's non-party company's non-resident company's non-resident company's income, and the non-party company's income is restricted as bonus for the representative director in 2000 and 2001 on the ground that the attribution of income amount is unclear, and then the amount corresponding to the representative director's tenure of office of the plaintiff's representative director's bonus is disposed of as the plaintiff's bonus and notify the plaintiff of the change in income amount.

Where a tax authority finds a non-reported amount of income to a corporation, separate from imposing corporate tax by including it in the calculation of gross income where it is not reserved to the corporation and it is unclear that it reverts to the corporation other than the company, it shall be in accordance with Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and shall be deemed that the leaked amount belongs to the representative and be disposed of as a bonus to the representative. As such, the amount of income disposed of as a bonus for the representative is added to the individual's income and is liable to pay it.

Therefore, the disposition of income as bonus to the plaintiff, who was employed at the time on the above report amount, for which the defendant's attribution is unclear, is deemed to have been paid as bonus. Thus, the plaintiff is liable to pay income tax on the bonus amount which is deemed to have been paid separately from the liability for corporate tax payment of the non-party company. The attachment disposition of this case against the plaintiff's real estate is justified as long as the plaintiff is delinquent.

C. Unlike a legal entity that is a withholding agent, the Plaintiff asserts that the imposition of income tax against the Plaintiff is unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff merely bears the obligation to collect and pay the source tax by the withholding agent, and does not bear a direct tax liability.

However, in a case where there is no withholding tax on income which is to be withheld from the disposition of income, if such income is to be added to the tax base of global income of the person to whom such income belongs, the taxation authority may impose it as global income tax on the person to whom the income belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Nu347, Sept. 22, 1981); and Articles 4(1)1 and 20(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7006, Dec. 30, 2003).

Income tax may be levied.

In relation to this point, the plaintiff asserted that in the Seoul District Court Decision 2008Gu22839 of the Seoul District Court Decision 2008Gu22839 for the cancellation of the income tax imposition claim, the plaintiff asserted that in principle, a person liable to pay the source tax with respect to the source tax amount, the person liable to pay the source tax, and the person liable to pay the income tax, in principle, did not bear a direct tax liability. However, in the case of withholding tax, the above decision merely stated that the person liable to pay the source tax does not have the obligation to pay the withholding tax directly to the tax authority because the person liable to pay the withholding tax is not the person liable to pay the source tax, and it does not state that the person liable to pay the withholding tax does not have the obligation to pay the Class A earned income tax or the global income tax with respect to the income subject to withholding tax. (In addition, the above decision

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

D. The Plaintiff, as of October 5, 2007, sent a notice of change in income amount of KRW 131,958,620 to the Plaintiff’s global income amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s 2001 global income amount to the succeeding representative director, the Plaintiff asserts that the tax claim of KRW 120,227,630, total global income tax for the year 200 and 2001 against the Plaintiff was completely extinguished because the Plaintiff did not have any income amount pertaining to the Nonparty Company.

However, according to the above facts, the part of global income tax for the year 2001 which the defendant imposed and notified to the plaintiff on January 3, 2007 was corrected due to the error in the term of office of the representative director on October 5, 2007 and the income amount of 131,958,620 out of 156,88,913 won was changed to be reverted to the intervenor who is the succeeding representative director of the non-party company. As the income amount for the year 2001, which was disposed of to the plaintiff as 24,930,293 won, was adjusted to 3,400,100 won, but the above amount of global income tax for the year 200,000 won was reduced to 3,40,000 won (the above amount of income and income tax for the year 200,000 won was not correct, and the above amount of global income tax for the year 201,000 won was still reduced to 201,000 won.

E. In addition, the Plaintiff appears to have any procedural defect or defect in the content of the notification from the seizure to the seizure, such as the instant notice of taxation or the attachment notification.

However, if the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 are added to the purport of the whole pleadings, the director of the tax office in Seodaemun shall serve the plaintiff with the notice of tax notice and change of income amount, and the defendant shall serve the plaintiff with the notice of tax payment of each global income tax and global income tax claim as preserved claim.

It is recognized that a notice of property attachment was served to the effect that the property attachment is to be attached, and there is no particular violation of the procedure stipulated in the National Tax Number Act in the above procedure. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Plaintiff, the part of corporate tax is stated in the details of calculating the amount of tax attached to the notice of tax assessment (Evidence A4) as pointed out by the Plaintiff. However, it is merely stated in order to clarify the grounds for taxation that the Plaintiff is liable to pay taxes in the position of representative director by indicating the amount of income of the non-party company that served as the basis for calculating the amount of income, and it is apparent that it is not imposed on the non-party company that is liable to pay taxes on the Plaintiff. Further, it is pointed out that it is illegal for the Plaintiff to deliver the notice of property attachment without stating the name of the corporation subject to taxation in the notice of property attachment (Evidence A2) and only the name of the Plaintiff was written on the Plaintiff's real estate on the ground of delinquency in payment of global income tax. Thus, the attachment disposition

All of these arguments are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the seizure disposition of this case is valid, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's above assertion as to the grounds for its invalidation, and other circumstances alleged by the plaintiff cannot be accepted because they merely conflict with the above judgment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court, which concluded as above, is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.