원고가 이 사건 사업장의 실사업자가 아니더라 하더라도 이는 중대명백한 하자로 볼 수 없어 압류처분은 적법함[국승]
Even if the Plaintiff was not an actual business operator of the instant workplace, the attachment disposition is legitimate because it cannot be deemed as a serious defect.
Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s seizure disposition on his own real estate is null and void as it is not an actual business operator of the instant business place, it is difficult to view it as an obvious defect in itself.
2016Nu70842
○ ○
Head of Sungnam Tax Office
Suwon District Court 2015Guhap70097
April 20, 2017
May 11, 2017
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On June 21, 2012, the decision of the first instance court is revoked. In the first instance court, the attachment disposition taken by the defendant on June 21, 2012 with respect to the land of Incheon-si 1 is confirmed to be invalid. In the first instance, the attachment disposition taken by the defendant on June 21, 2012 with respect to the land of Incheon-si 2
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to that of the first instance court, except where "AA" in Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance is admitted as "the plaintiff", and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.