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

A. From February 200 to May 17, 2002, the Plaintiff operated the manufacturing business under the trade name called ○○○ Electricity, and the Plaintiff incurred tax liability, such as the attached Form, in relation to the operation of the said business.

B. On the other hand, on June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract of 26,480 won of monthly insurance premium (name of goods: non-dividend cancer insurance type 2) with a beneficiary as the Plaintiff on June 25, 2004, and the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s right (right to claim insurance money, claim for the repayment of insurance premium, etc.) based on the above insurance contract against Drana Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on January 23, 2006, when the Plaintiff defaulted the above tax liability.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

As the above insurance contract becomes effective on December 1, 2006 and thereafter, the plaintiff's right to claim refund against Libera Life Insurance Co., Ltd. is extinguished on November 30, 2008 due to the expiration of the prescription period, seizure by the defendant's disposition on default is null and void due to the absence of the seized claim. Ultimately, the defendant's right to claim international collection of the above tax obligation has expired after the lapse of five-year prescription period.

3. Determination

As long as a seizure based on the Defendant’s disposition on default does not automatically become null and void from the beginning, the effect of the above seizure cannot be deemed null and void even if the right based on the above insurance contract expires thereafter, and the interruption of prescription therefrom shall be deemed null and void until the seizure is cancelled (Article 28(1)4 and (2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

Therefore, the above tax liability is suspended by the seizure by the defendant's disposition on default on January 23, 2006, and its prescription has not been extinguished until the date of closing of argument.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Hak-chan