The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

[Seoul Southern District Court 2008Na3201 ( November 27, 2008)]

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

2. Purport of appeal

As set forth in the text.

The court of first instance rejected the claim for cancellation of the public auction and accepted the claim for cancellation of the above attachment registration, as the plaintiff appealeded against the execution of the procedure for cancellation of the attachment registration of the real estate stated in the attached attachment (hereinafter in this case's real estate) and the cancellation of the public auction of the above real estate as stated in the purport of the claim. Accordingly, the appeal of this court is limited to the claim for cancellation of the attachment registration

2. Basic facts

According to Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4, and according to the order of submission of documents to the director of the lecture office of this court, the result of the submission of documents, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged:

A. The Defendant issued a disposition of seizing the instant real estate on November 17, 200 as the Defendant failed to pay the additional notified tax amount among global income tax for the year 1997 (the title code 20006-6-6-10, the management number 0067, hereinafter referred to as the “first national tax”), and the final return of global income tax for the year 1999 (the management number 2008-5-10, the management number 00219, hereinafter referred to as the “second national tax”). The attachment registration for the instant real estate was completed as of November 23, 200 at the 14057 received on November 23, 2000 from the recommending District Court.

B. On January 10, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased the above real estate from ○○ Office, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 31st of the same month.

C. On November 10, 200, the Defendant: (a) determined the interim tax amount from the global income tax in the year 2000 as KRW 2,90,960 on November 30, 200; (b) notified the payment deadline on November 30, 200 (hereinafter “third national tax”); (c) thereafter, the Defendant filed a final tax return on May 31, 2001 with the head of Yuok as the global income tax amount of KRW 6,448,81 and did not pay the reported global tax amount of KRW 6,659,608 (=6,48,811 won - 2,90,90,960; and (d) notified the payment deadline on November 30, 200 (hereinafter “third national tax”); and (d) revised the said global income tax amount by adding the additional tax after deducting the tax from the reported interim tax amount of KRW 3,659,608,100,90-105).

3. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that as long as the first and second national taxes are paid in full at the time of the seizure of this case, the above seizure becomes null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the above seizure.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the attachment registration is not to be cancelled because the third and fourth national taxes are delinquent, and the above attachment also has an effect on the delinquent amount.

Where any real estate, the attachment of which has been registered under the National Tax Collection Act, is transferred to a third party and the ownership transfer registration has been made, the effect of the attachment shall also extend to any delinquent amount of the national taxes for which the statutory due date under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has arrived before the ownership of the said real estate is transferred (Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act), and the statutory due date of the third national tax is November 10, 2000, when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said real estate before January 31, 200, which was the payment notice date, and the above attachment shall also affect the third national tax delinquent amount (the defendant asserts that the effect of the attachment of this case extends to the fourth national tax delinquent amount). However, the statutory due date of the fourth national tax is the date of the final return on May 31, 201, and since the ownership of the plaintiff was acquired after the date of the acquisition of the ownership, the plaintiff's assertion seeking cancellation of the attachment registration under the premise that the whole national tax becomes extinguished.

C. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) Determination of the third national tax payment assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the third national taxes, as well as the first and second national taxes, were extinguished when the Defendant appropriated the total amount of KRW 72,492,370 already received, including KRW 13,168,510,00, which was delivered on April 27, 2004, from the voluntary auction case No. 2334, Chuncheon District Court 2003.

According to the above evidence No. 10 and No. 6, the defendant received KRW 13,168,510 in relation to the amount of delinquent taxes at the above auction procedure on April 27, 2004, and gift tax (tax title No. 2008-633, 0035, September 24, 2002) and global income tax (tax title No. 20307-610, August 265, 2003) (tax title No. 2030, Aug. 21, 2003). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above evidence had already been appropriated prior to the above disposal of delinquent taxes was insufficient to recognize that the above amount had already been appropriated to the above disposal of delinquent taxes (tax code No. 1991-10, 074, 1978, 199). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above disposal of delinquent taxes had not been appropriated to the above disposal of delinquent taxes due to its lack of tax payment.

(2) Determination as to the third national tax’s assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription

The plaintiff asserts that the 5-year extinctive prescription for the 3 national tax has expired, and that the defendant had suspended the progress of the statute of limitations for the national tax that has the effect of the seizure of this case. Thus, as long as the effect of the seizure on the real estate of this case extends to the 3 national tax, the effect of the 3 national tax extinction does not proceed until the release of the above seizure. Thus, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

(3) Determination on the assertion that seizure effect has been lost

The plaintiff asserts that the national tax to be collected by the seizure was invalidated pursuant to Article 24 (5) of the National Tax Collection Act, since the national tax of Article 1 and Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act were all extinguished, since the above seizure was not determined within three months from the date of the above seizure. However, Article 24 (5) of the National Tax Collection Act is a provision concerning the seizure before the determination of national tax under Article 24 (2) of the same Act and does not apply to the seizure of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of seizure registration shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the part concerning the above claim in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different, it shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part shall be dismissed as per Disposition.