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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant on December 3, 1998 and June 21, 201, against the plaintiff, the Busan ZZ group BBB that was done against the plaintiff.

291-1 답 20㎡와 울산 QQ군 WW면 RR리 438 임야 162㎡에 대한 각 압류 처분은

confirm that each invalidation is void.

가. 원고는 1997. 7. 9.경 부산 ㅁㅁ군 ㅌㅌ읍 VV리 84-4 토지 및 그 지상 건물(이하 '이 사건 양도부동산'이라 한다)을 CC에게 양도하였으나, 양도소득세 예정신고기한 내에 양도소득세 신고를 하지 않았다.

B. Accordingly, on May 9, 1998, the Defendant imposed a transfer income tax of KRW 8,677,200 on the transferred real estate of this case by calculating the transfer value of KRW 60,441,390, acquisition value and necessary expenses, KRW 10,403,043, transfer margin of KRW 50,038,347, and then imposing a transfer income tax of KRW 8,67,200.

다. 피고는 원고가 위 양도소득세를 납부기한 내에 납부하지 아니하자, 원고 소유의 부산 기장군 ZZ면 XX리 291-1 답 20㎡(이하 '이 사건 제1부동산'이라 한다)와 울산울주군 QQ면 WW리 438 임야 162㎡ 중 1/2 지분(이하 '이 사건 제2부동산'이라 한다)에 대한 압류 등기를 촉탁하여, 이 사건 제1부동산에 관하여는 부산지방법원 동부지원 등기과 1998. 12. 3. 접수 제00000호로 해운대세무서 명의로 압류등기가, 이 사건 제2부동산에 관하여는 울산지방법원 등기과 1998. 12. 3. 접수 제00000호로 압류등기가 각 마쳐졌고(이하 '1998. 12. 3.자 압류처분'이라 한다), 이후 여전히 위 세금이 체납되었음을 이유로 이 사건 제1부동산에 관하여 압류등기를 촉탁하여 부산지방법원 동부지원 2011. 6. 21. 접수 제000호로 피고 명의로 다시 압류등기가 마쳐졌다(이하'2011. 6. 21.자 압류처분'이라 하고, 위 각 압류처분을 통틀어 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다).

D. Meanwhile, the Defendant at the time of November 25, 1998, dealt with KRW 9,331,660, out of KRW 9,631,660, as a result of the transfer of the instant transferred real estate, until around November 25, 199.

E. Since then on September 9, 1999, the defendant's requisition and revenue official D shall dispose of the loss as above.

On September 30, 1999, the plaintiff sent a notice of the amount of national taxes in arrears to the plaintiff, and on September 30, 1999, the plaintiff paid KRW 300,000,000 to the plaintiff, and at the time, E-E of imported public officials issued a receipt stating "the full payment" to the plaintiff.

F. On July 7, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the scheduled public auction to the Korea Asset Management Corporation on July 18, 2014, stating that “In order to cover KRW 15,085,260 for the transfer income tax amount due to the transfer of the transferred real estate, the Defendant would request a public auction to the Korea Asset Management Corporation on the instant real estate, and paid the said amount in arrears prior to the scheduled date of the public auction.”

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2 through 5, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The plaintiff was not notified of the decision of capital gains tax of May 9, 1998 on the transferred real estate of this case. Around September 9, 1999, after one year from the above, D, a public official of the defendant at the time, sold other land owned by the plaintiff, and so D, a 300,000 won, which is the balance of the transfer real estate of this case, deducted from the capital gains tax of this case, should be returned if the money is paid. Accordingly, D, a public official of the defendant at the time, who was notified of the decision of capital gains tax of this case, was not notified of the decision of capital gains tax of this case. Since D, a public official of the defendant at the time, who was the public official of the defendant at the time, sold other land owned by the plaintiff, is the total amount of 300,000 won, which is the amount of delinquent tax of this case, 300,0000 won, and 1.6,000,000 won, should be revoked.

2) Even if the actual amount of delinquent taxes other than KRW 300,000 paid by the Plaintiff still remains, the Plaintiff received 300,000,000 from the Defendant’s notice of the amount of national taxes in excess of KRW 300,000,00, and reliance on it, and the public official in charge pays 300,000 won and receives the receipts in full. As such, the Plaintiff’s trust in such Defendant’s public opinion title should be protected, and the continued maintenance of the above seizure disposition, unlike the public opinion title, contradicts the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of protection of trust (the Plaintiff did not explicitly state it in the preparatory document, but claims the same purport as above through a written reference as of November 17, 2014 after the closing of argument and the purport of the entire pleadings.)

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff received a written notice of capital gains tax as of May 9, 1998.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s written resolution of the capital gains tax decision (Evidence 1) dated May 9, 1998, which is clearly stated as follows; (ii) May 9, 198, the date of notice of taxation; and (iii) the detailed inquiry column for the decision of collection (Evidence 5) also stated as 8,677,205 won, and May 9, 1998, which were registered on the Defendant’s computer network at the time of 198; (iv) it is difficult to view that the said internal data was legally recorded on 99,000,000 won and recorded on 97,000 won, and that there was no other evidence that the said written notification was sent before 16 years prior to the date of notice; and (v) the Plaintiff could not claim for the delivery of the transfer income tax on the real estate that was delivered by registered mail at the time of 198,000 won.

B) Next, we examine the existence of delinquent tax as the cause of the instant disposition and the existence of the obligation to cancel attachment.

Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the attachment is no longer needed due to the payment, appropriation, suspension of public auction, cancellation of the imposition, and other reasons, when the third party's claim on the ownership pursuant to Article 50 is deemed to have a reasonable ground, the director of the tax office must release the attachment.

In light of the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, since the reasonable amount of tax due to the transfer of the transferred real estate of this case is KRW 8,67,200, the transfer income tax is 9,631,660, and if the increased amount of tax as of November 25, 1998 includes the increased amount of tax as of November 25, 1998, the Defendant treated KRW 9,331,660, among the above transfer income tax 9,631,660, and 30,000,000,000,000 were not treated as deficit. The Defendant's notice of national tax arrears to the Plaintiff can be acknowledged as having been notified of the remaining amount after disposal of deficit as above, and the disposition of deficit is not for the internal business affairs of the Defendant for adjustment of arrears, and it is not for the immediate extinguishment of tax payment equivalent to the amount disposed of externally, the Defendant still did not have any obligation to release the above amount of tax remaining after disposal of loss of the Plaintiff's property of this case.

2) Determination on the second argument

A) In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s acts in tax and law relations, the tax authority should name the public opinion list that is the subject of taxpayer’s trust; the tax authority’s name of opinion statement is justifiable; the taxpayer does not have any cause attributable to the taxpayer; the taxpayer must trust the opinion list; and what is the taxpayer’s name should be; and the tax authority’s disposition against the above opinion list should result in infringing the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the instant case was examined, the Defendant’s requisition and tax officials

D, around September 9, 199, around May 31, 1998, a notice of the amount of national tax in arrears, which was entered as 300,000 won in capital gains tax to be paid, was sent to the defendant on September 30, 1999, and the plaintiff paid 30,000 won in capital gains tax to the defendant on September 30, 199, and the employee EE of the defendant issued a receipt stating "the amount of national tax in full to the plaintiff."

However, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 through 6’s respective purport of each of the above evidence and arguments, ① the Plaintiff was served with a notice of tax amount of KRW 8,67,205 around May 9, 198, and it is difficult to believe that the amount of tax would have been reduced to KRW 300,000,000 for the first time due to mistake in the imposition of capital gains tax or subsequent reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for the period of 300,000,000,000 won was 10,000 won and 30,000,000 won were less than 10,000 won and thus, it is difficult to view that there was a difference between 60,000 won and 30,000 won and 50,000 won, which would have been found to have been for the Plaintiff’s new sale of real property.

3) Ultimately, the attachment disposition as of December 3, 1998 is lawful and effective, and the attachment disposition as of June 21, 201, which was returned to the first real estate of this case under the name of the defendant on the grounds of the existence of the amount in arrears, is also lawful and effective.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.