채권압류처분무효확인
1. It is confirmed that the disposition imposing corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff on September 16, 2013 by the Defendant is null and void.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. The following facts: (a) the Plaintiff sold the amount of KRW 6.2 billion in the sales price of the pertinent real estate to the Plaintiff on June 20, 2013 in the course of the voluntary auction of real estate, which was owned by the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant, on September 16, 2013, calculated the Plaintiff’s gross income for the business year 2013 (from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) and the purchase price of KRW 1.1 billion in the deductible expenses for the same business year; and (c) determined the Plaintiff’s corporate tax base for the business year 2013 as KRW 5.1 billion in the deductible expenses for each business year, and corporate tax as KRW 1.1 billion in the corporate tax.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff was closed on December 31, 2007 through the internal computer network, and delivered the Plaintiff’s notice for payment of corporate tax for the business year 2013 to C registered on the computer network as the representative director at the time of closure.
However, at the time of the decision to impose the instant tax disposition, the Plaintiff’s principal office was finally transferred from 402 to 402, the location at the time of closure of the business, and the registration was completed on April 16, 2013 after the transfer from 11, Busan Shipping Daegu E and 1701. The registration was completed on April 16, 201, and the representative director also changed to F on April 22, 201.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Defendant did not serve the Plaintiff or its representative’s address as of the payment notice for the instant disposition, and served the Plaintiff’s previous representative director on the Plaintiff’s previous representative director is in violation of Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void.
B. At the time of the decision on the instant disposition by the Defendant, the Plaintiff had already discontinued its business and thus it is difficult to serve the instant disposition as the Plaintiff’s head office. As such, the method to enable the Plaintiff to verify the instant disposition is to serve the Defendant, the representative director at the time of
Therefore, at the time of the closure of business.