Cho Jae-2016-1613 (Law No. 13, 2016)

Attachment of claims shall enter into force upon delivery of the notification of attachment to the garnishee.

Attachment is one of the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription, and Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the notification of seizure of claims is effective when it is served on the garnishee.

Article 28 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap9928 Revocation of Attachment

KimA

AA Head of the Tax Office

on 04 October 2017

on October 29, 2017

1. On December 29, 2015, the Defendant’s attachment disposition against the Plaintiff’s wage claim is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on December 29, 2015 against the Plaintiff’s wage claim shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant imposed capital gains tax, etc. on the Plaintiff as follows, and served a tax payment notice (hereinafter “each tax payment notice of this case”) by service by public notice.

B. A person who did not pay the Plaintiff, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s wage claim against the Plaintiff due to the disposition on default (hereinafter “instant attachment disposition”) as follows:

(3).

C. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant attachment disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on July 13, 2016.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful, since the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on April 18, 2016, 2016, after being served with the notice of attachment on or before January 5, 2016 or on or before January 8, 2016. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the instant lawsuit was not presented. According to the current medical corporation creative health foundation AAA hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “AAA hospital”), the Defendant did not receive the notice of attachment within the period of 16th, on or before the date of the notification of attachment, on the grounds that it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff received the notice of attachment within the period of 20th, not on the ground that the Plaintiff received the notice of attachment within the period of 16th, but on the grounds that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to receive the said notice of attachment.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The attachment disposition of this case shall be revoked on the following grounds.

1) The Defendant immediately served by public notice solely on the ground that each of the instant tax notice was returned, without serving a telephone call, serving a delivery, or serving a place of business. The foregoing service by public notice is unlawful as it fails to meet the requirements.

2) Even if service by public notice is lawful, the instant attachment disposition was unlawful since the Defendant’s right to collect the transfer income tax accrued in 2006 and the global income tax accrued in 2008 had already expired after the statute of limitations.

B. Determination

1) Whether service by public notice is lawful

Article 10(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the service of documents, such as a notice of tax payment, by mail, shall be made by registered mail. Article 11(1) of the same Act provides that where the address or place of business is overseas and it is difficult to serve such documents (Article 11(1)1), where the address or place of business is unclear (Article 10(2) and where the person under Article 10(4) fails to serve a document at a place where the document is to be served by registered mail (Article 10(3)) and where the document is sent by registered mail but the recipient’s absence is returned by registered mail (Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act). Article 7(2) of the same Act provides that "cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" refers to cases where a document is served by registered mail but it is deemed difficult to serve a document within the due date for payment due to the absence of the addressee (Article 11(1)1).

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 5 through 8 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff served a notice of tax payment of global income tax for the year 2008 on Nov. 23, 2007 on Nov. 23, 2007, on Oct. 1, 2009, on the same 424-3 (4-), and on July 7, 201, on the same 424-22 (5-1-5), and on July 7, 2011, on the move-in report of resident registration, the plaintiff filed a tax payment notice of global income tax for the year 2006 by registered mail at the above domicile of the plaintiff, four times, five times, five times, five times, and three times the global income tax for the year 209, on the global income tax for the year 2012, and the plaintiff's assertion that the above notice of tax payment under Article 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act was legitimate.

2) Whether the right to collect by prescription has expired

A) Relevant provisions

Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the State’s right to collect national taxes shall expire if it is not exercised for five years from the time it can be exercised. Article 12-4(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “when the State can exercise its right to collect national taxes” refers to the date following the due date for payment notified when the Government determines, revises, or determines the tax base and amount of tax to be imposed occasionally. In addition, Article 28(1)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulates that the seizure is one of the grounds for suspending the extinctive prescription, and Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the notification of the seizure of claims shall enter into force when the notification

B) The portion of transfer income tax reverted to year 2006

As of July 7, 2008, the time limit for payment of the transfer income tax reverted to year 2006 was served on the AA Hospital on December 31, 2015, which was five years after that day, and the notice of attachment was served on the third obligor, as above, the Defendant’s right to collect the transfer income tax reverted to year 2006 had already expired before the seizure disposition of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is with merit.

On July 14, 201, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the Defendant asserts that the said extinctive prescription was interrupted because the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff’s AAAA member was seized. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the notification of seizure as of July 14, 201 was served on the third obligor, a third obligor, solely for the circumstance that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was ordinarily carried out at the time of seizure, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

C) The global income tax for 2008

As seen earlier, the time limit for payment of global income tax accrued in 2008 was August 17, 2010, and the notice of attachment was served on the third obligor on December 31, 2015, which was five years after that date, to AAA Hospital. However, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s benefit claim against the AAA Hospital by taking the global income tax accrued in July 29, 2015 as delinquent tax amount related to the attachment as the global income tax accrued in 2008, and served the notice of attachment to the AAA Hospital, which is the third obligor on August 3, 2015, and thus, the said statute of limitations was interrupted pursuant to Article 28(1)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, among the attachment disposition of this case, the part of the DDR is unlawful, and the remainder is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.