Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

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

The plaintiff is the owner of 1530 square meters in ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”).

The defendant completed the registration of seizure (hereinafter "registration of seizure of this case") on the land of this case received on May 30, 2016 by ○○ District Court No. 76645, which was received on May 30, 2016, on the ground that ○ Construction failed to pay aggregate of KRW 1,918,520,200 (hereinafter "tax of this case") including value-added tax and corporate tax, and the plaintiff submitted the letter of guarantee for the above delinquent tax amount (hereinafter "the letter of guarantee for guarantee for the above delinquent tax amount").

However, since the letter of guarantee of this case was forged by the non-party Kim ○'s arbitrary use of the plaintiff's name, and the defendant did not go through the procedure of notifying the plaintiff of the submission of the letter of guarantee of this case, the plaintiff has no obligation to pay the above delinquent tax. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for cancelling

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, and the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff constitutes the so-called performance lawsuit, which is not permissible under the current Administrative Litigation Act, as the form of lawsuit seeking to erase the obligation to make the court take such administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4126, Feb. 11, 1992). Thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the attachment registration directly against the Defendant is unlawful, even if the Plaintiff demanded the cancellation of the attachment registration by civil action.

B. Even if the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is selected as seeking revocation of the attachment disposition against the Plaintiff, Articles 55 and 56(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 14382, Dec. 20, 2016) provide that “No administrative litigation against any unlawful or unreasonable disposition, etc., as a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or tax-related Acts, shall be filed without going through a request for examination or a request for adjudication and a decision thereon under the Framework Act on National Taxes,” and Article 24(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that “where the taxpayer fails to pay national taxes and additional dues in full by the designated time limit after receiving a demand notice (including a notice of demand), the taxpayer’s property shall be seized.” Thus, in order for the Plaintiff to institute an administrative litigation for revocation on the grounds of illegality of the attachment disposition, the Plaintiff has to undergo a request for examination or a request for adjudication under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful in that the Plaintiff was brought without requisite pre-trial procedure.

3. Conclusion

Since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it and it is so decided as per Disposition.