[부동산압류처분취소][공1993.11.15.(956),3005]
Where a disposition on deficits is revoked, the object of disposition on arrears;
In light of the provisions of Article 86(2) of the National Tax Collection Act and the purport of the system of write-off of deficits, in cases where the tax authority revokes a write-off of deficits as the assets which could have been seized at the time of write-off of deficits, the object of disposition on default shall be limited to the relevant assets which could have been seized at the time of write-off of deficits or other assets acquired by the taxpayer in return for the disposal of such assets, and
Article 86 of the National Tax Collection Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
Head of Public Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu21694 delivered on May 12, 1993
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the defendant litigation performer.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff did not pay 85,227,010 won, such as transfer income tax, etc. of occasional amount of 1988 on July 31, 1988 and did not have any other property. The court below, after cancelling the above disposal as of March 30, 1992, ordered the seizure of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2 in the separate sheet No. 3 in the name of the plaintiff, for which the registration of transfer of ownership was made in the name of the plaintiff, and then again issued a seizure disposition on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1,2,3 real estate) as stated in the separate sheet No. 1,2, and it did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had already acquired the above real estate before the above disposal of transfer of ownership as of November 30, 191.
Article 86 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that where a taxpayer has a reason falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph, the head of a tax office may take a disposition of deficit, and Article 86 (2) of the same Act provides that where the head of a tax office finds that there was another property which can be seized at the time of the disposition after taking a disposition of deficit pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), he/she shall without delay cancel the disposition and take a disposition of arrears. Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the above disposition of deficit shall be one of the grounds for extinguishment of the obligation to pay national taxes, surcharges and expenses for disposition of arrears. There is no provision concerning the effective scope of cancellation of the disposition of deficit and the procedures for notifying the taxpayer of the disposition of the disposition of deficit. In cases where there was another property which could be seized at the time of the disposition of deficit without taking a disposition of deficit, the taxpayer's liability to pay deficit is extinguished as the price for the disposition of arrears is not subject to a separate disposition of arrears, and the taxpayer's legal stability with respect to the disposition of deficit.
The assertion is based on the different views of the judgment of the court below.
In addition, the court below did not separately decide on the defendant's assertion that the third real estate of this case was acquired as another property owned by the plaintiff which was concealed at the time of the above disposal of deficit, but it did not have any effect on the result of the judgment below since there was no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion even after examining the record.
2. The plaintiff did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within the submission period and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication in the grounds for appeal.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)