2. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the Plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 98,761,579 won, 130,959,530 won, and each of the above money at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the application for amendment of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 89,385,697 won, 118,526,952 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for amendment of the purport of this case to the day of complete payment.

(b) Defendant: as set forth in paragraph (1).

The reasoning for this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the first instance court's "No. 10, Sep. 8, 2005" and "No. 31, 2008" and the first instance court's "No. 31, 2008" and No. 16 of No. 9 are as stated in the reasoning for the first instance court's decision, except for the second instance court's appeal No. 10, No. 13, Sep. 8, 2005; No. 31, Aug. 31, 2008; and No. 16, No. 9 are as stated in the reasoning for the first instance court's decision.

2. Parts in height:

A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the above evidence Nos. 4-1 to 3, 14-1 to 5, 15, 25, and 26 Evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4-5, the head of Gangdong-gu imposed registration tax on the officetels part among the main apartments of this case on May 10, 2008, and served a tax payment notice to the address of Non-Party 1, the representative director of the Lee 1 (the non-party 2: the father of the non-party 1) on May 22, 2008, the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1 (the non-party 4: the non-party 2, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1: the non-party 2, the non-party 4) on the non-party 2, the non-party 1 (the non-party 2, the non-party 1) on the non-party 10-party 2, the non-party 2, the two-party 16.21.

B) On April 14, 2008, after the head of Gangdong-gu revoked the disposition imposing acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. on each of the main apartment complexes of this case on or around May 10, 2008, the Plaintiffs: (a) the head of Gangdong-gu revoked the disposition imposing the above taxes on or around May 14, 2008; and (b) the Defendant requested the head of Gangdong-gu to seize and collect refund claims arising from the revocation of the disposition imposing the above acquisition tax, etc.; (c) the head of Gangdong-gu Office requested the head of Gangdong-gu to seize and collect refund claims; (d) accordingly, the head of Gangdong-gu Office appropriated the refund related thereto and made the notification of refund under Article 64(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Local Taxes to the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) whose representative director was the father of the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) around May 22, 2008.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the head of Gangdong-gu Office imposed acquisition tax on May 10, 208, along with the registration tax on the same day. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that the above mail was sent along with a tax payment notice on the same day. The Defendant’s submission of each of the above documentary evidence (No. 14-5), delivery certificate (No. 15-26) and delivery certificate of registered mail (No. 26), and the second tax liability is based on the premise that the head of Gangdong-gu Office notified Nonparty 2 of the principal tax liability to the construction of Gangdong-gu office. The head of Gangdong-gu Office did not appear to have separately followed the procedures for the second tax liability on the non-party 1 (the non-party 1: the non-party 1) and the second tax liability on the non-party 2 (the non-party 2) for the non-party 8’s delivery of the registration tax on the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) and the second tax liability for the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) were unlawful.

C) On December 13, 2010, the Plaintiffs asserted that, at the time when the Defendant notified Nonparty 1 (hereinafter Nonparty 1) of the secondary tax liability related to the registration tax related to the officetel portion among the main apartment of this case, the Defendant did not enter all of the notified matters (the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, calculation basis, payment period, place of payment, amount to be collected from the secondary taxpayer, calculation basis, etc.) under Article 45 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, and that Nonparty 1’s secondary tax liability was not established since the second tax payment notice and the second tax payment notice were not attached.

Whether necessary entries have been properly stated in a tax payment notice, notice of payment, etc. can be clearly stated only by the original or duplicate of the issued notice of payment, etc. Therefore, it is necessary for a taxpayer who asserts that the necessary entry in a tax payment notice, etc. has been omitted if the tax authority did not keep its duplicate separately from the tax office under the relevant laws and regulations even though the tax authority made a legitimate resolution of taxation and provided a tax payment notice, etc. in accordance with the statutory form (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu55, Oct. 28, 1986).

However, the Defendant, on December 13, 2010, designated Nonparty 1 (non-party 1: non-party 2) as the secondary taxpayer and notified the payment of the registration tax equivalent to 98.33% of the officetel part of each of the main apartment complexes of this case. On December 16, 2010, Non-party 1 (non-party 1: non-party 2)’s mother of non-party 1 (non-party 4) received it as above. On December 16, 2010, according to the evidence No. 4-1 through 3, the above second taxpayer and the notice of payment are the details of non-party 2’s delinquency in the payment of the registration tax (real estate): 208/05; 202,178,80 won; 208.1.6% of the total amount of taxes in arrears; 3.0% of the total amount of taxes in arrears and the first notice of payment in arrears (the first notice of payment in this case).

D) The plaintiffs asserted that, since the disposition imposing again the registration tax on the apartment portion among the main apartment units of this case as of January 10, 201 and April 16, 2012, of the head of Gangdong-gu as to the construction of an office tower is null and void with the exclusion period imposed, the defendant cannot cover the registration tax on the apartment portion as of KRW 179,889,600 out of the amount to be refunded to the building of Gangdong-gu, and it should be appropriated for the registration tax on the officetel portion, and therefore, the second liability to pay the registration tax on the officetels portion, which is complementary to the non-party 1 (the non-party 1: the non-party 1) cannot be appropriated for the second liability to pay the registration tax on the above officetel portion, and the refund to the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) should be refunded to the non-party 1 (the counter-party 1) (the counter-party 1).

According to Article 38 (1) 1 and 3 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, local taxes cannot be imposed after five years elapse from the date on which they can be imposed, except for cases where a taxpayer evades tax or is refunded or reduced by fraudulent or other unlawful acts. Meanwhile, where a lawsuit is instituted pursuant to paragraph (2) 1, the determination of correction or other necessary measures can be made within one year from the date on which the determination or ruling becomes final and conclusive, and Article 34 (1) 2 (a) of the same Act provides that a taxpayer shall be liable to pay taxes if he/she fails to pay taxes after the determination or ruling becomes final and conclusive, and that the period for taxation can only be deemed as 9 years from the date on which the determination or ruling becomes void, and that the period for taxation can only be deemed as 9 years from the date on which the determination or ruling becomes final and conclusive, and that the period for taxation can also be deemed as 9 years from the date on which the determination or ruling becomes void, and that the provisions of Article 30 (1) 2 (b) of the same Act shall also be deemed as invalid.

(2) On January 1, 2006, the Seoul High Court Decision 201. 8. 1. 1. 2. 8. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. The defendant again decided that the above tax should be imposed on the non-party 2's main office 1. 8. 1. 1. 1. 8. 1. 1. 1. 2, the defendant's 1. 2. 1. 8. 2's 1. 4. 8's 1. 2. 8's 1. 8's 2. 9's 1. 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 2's 1's 7's 2's 1's 6's 1's 1'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''4 1''''''''''''''''''''2 1'2''''.

According to the above facts, the defendant may impose registration tax from January 16, 2005, which is the day following the due date of the report (payment) with respect to each of the main apartment complexes of this case, the registration of ownership preservation of which was completed on January 15, 2005. Thus, on January 10, 201, which was five years after the due date of the expiration date of such due date of imposition, the head of Gangdong-gu Office cancelled the main disposition of imposition (multi-family) of this case on January 10, 201, and imposed registration tax 151,715,180, local education tax, and local education tax 28,174,420, the total of KRW 179,600, which was 179,600, within the same period of exclusion. However, since the head of Gangdong-gu office revoked the above final judgment within 3 years after the due date of imposition of registration tax, the second disposition of this case becomes final and conclusive within 13 years after the final judgment became final and conclusive (3 years of this case's.

Meanwhile, considering the institutional purport of the special exclusion period under the Framework Act on Local Taxes, in cases where the imposition of local taxes, which was made within the special exclusion period under Article 38(2)1 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, is again filed, requested for review, or litigation under the Administrative Litigation Act, and the subsequent decision or ruling becomes final and conclusive, the special exclusion period in relation to the imposition of local taxes should be newly calculated from the date of a new decision or final judgment. However, as the head of Gangdong-gu Office revoked the imposition of a total of KRW 179,889,60 on April 12, 201 by the head of Gangdong-gu Office on January 10, 201, when the head of Gangdong-gu Office imposed a total of KRW 179,889,600, including registration tax, etc., on April 16, 2012, it is reasonable to deem that the special exclusion period is valid within the special exclusion period as mentioned above.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3) Determination as to the defenses of enforcement deposit equivalent to KRW 29,193,480

The deposit for execution by a third party obligor under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act requires the concurrence of seizure against the claims subject to seizure. In this case, the amount to be deposited by the third party obligor under the provisions of the above Act shall be the total amount of the claims subject to seizure. This legal principle does not change where the third party obligor deposits the execution under the above Act in order to prevent compulsory execution based on the final judgment of the claim for collection amount in case where some execution creditors acquired a collection order with respect to the claims subject to seizure and the winning decision has become final and conclusive after filing a claim for collection amount after obtaining a collection order from some execution creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22700, Jul. 22, 2004). Meanwhile, in case where compulsory execution is conducted upon the execution of provisional seizure as the principal seizure, the execution of provisional seizure becomes effective as it was initially executed since it was included in the principal execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da48455, Oct. 14, 2010).

According to the Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu15133, the plaintiffs seized the registration tax and additional dues against the defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2010Kadan6855, 2010Kadan6856), on December 21, 2010, 749,960 won (Seoul Central District Court 2010No. 25940), on January 11, 201, the defendant's money deposited KRW 28,443,520 (Seoul Central District Court 2000) among the money refunded to the non-party 1 (the non-party 2) as Seoul High Court 201, the defendant's money deposited to the non-party 28,443,520 (the non-party 3's money deposited to the non-party 4, the total amount of the money deposited to the non-party 2, the defendant's money deposited to the non-party 1, 2019).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case shall be dismissed for all reasons. Since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair with a different conclusion, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the remaining part shall be justified with the conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal shall be dismissed for reasons.

Judge highest (Presiding Judge) and the President of the Republic of Korea