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

A. On August 11, 1997, the head of Sungdong Tax Office confirmed that the delinquent amount of the capital gains tax imposed on the Plaintiff in the year 1995 against the Plaintiff (including additional charges) is null and void (the Plaintiff sought confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000,000, which reverts from the first instance court to the year 1995, but this court expanded the purport of the claim as above).

B. On October 28, 2013, Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation confirmed that the disposition of public auction against the Plaintiff’s share among the condominium 313 located in the Dong-dong 24-1, Young-si, 2013 is null and void (the Plaintiff added this part of the claim to this court).

2. Purport of appeal

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the head of Sungdong Tax Office against the plaintiff on August 11, 1997

It is confirmed that the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 194,520,000 is void.

A. On August 11, 1997, the head of Sungdong Tax Office imposed a transfer income tax of KRW 000 on the plaintiff in 1995, but corrected the reduction of KRW 000 on December 30, 200 (hereinafter "the disposition in this case").

B. As the Plaintiff did not pay capital gains tax pursuant to the instant disposition, the head of Sungdong Tax Office’s 1/10 of the Plaintiff’s ○○○dong 24-1, Young-si 24-13 of Jun. 10, 199 as of June 10, 199

6 properties, such as shares (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"), were seized.

C. On July 8, 2013, the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation received a request from the head of Sungdong Tax Office to sell the instant real estate by public auction (hereinafter “instant public auction”) on October 28, 2013, and distributed KRW 000 out of the sales price to the head of Sungdong Tax Office on November 27, 2013. Defendant Sungdong Tax Office collected KRW 000 on November 29, 2013, and released the attachment of the instant real estate.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the ground of the completion of extinctive prescription of the claim in arrears following the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 26, 2015.

E. The amount of delinquent tax resulting from the instant disposition is KRW 000 (i.e., KRW 000 + additional 000 + increased additional 000 won - received amount of KRW 000)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether disposition, etc. is void;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant Sung-dong Tax Office’s obligation to pay the amount in arrears of the Plaintiff’s capital gains tax (including additional dues) upon the completion of the extinctive prescription on June 9, 2009 as of June 9, 2009 after the lapse of five years from the date of the seizure disposition by failing to exercise its right even though it was able to fully exercise its right after the seizure of the instant real estate on June 10, 1999. Thus, the public sale disposition of this case by Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation on October 28, 2013 after the expiration of the said extinctive prescription is null and void.

B. Determination

Pursuant to Article 28(1)4 and (2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 178(1) of the Civil Act, extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes by seizure is interrupted; where prescription has been interrupted, the prescription period that has lapsed until interruption is not included therein; and the prescription period that has lapsed when the cause for interruption ceases to exist; and the interruption of prescription by seizure may be deemed to have expired when the cause for interruption is rescinded or when the enforcement procedure is terminated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da239840, Apr. 28, 2017).

According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax on the disposition of this case shall be deemed to have been interrupted until the cancellation of the seizure of the real estate of this case on November 29, 2013 by the head of Sungdong Tax Office. Thus, at the time of the public sale of this case, the plaintiff's obligation to pay capital gains tax on the disposition of this

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

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 in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and all of the claims extended and added in this court are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.