Whether interruption of prescription takes effect even where a tax official’s search conducted to seize the delinquent’s property, but fails to enforce the seizure due to the lack of the object of seizure (affirmative)

Article 28 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the seizure in addition to a notice of tax payment, urging or demand for payment, and a request for delivery" is a cause suspending extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax. Since "the seizure" refers to the commencement by a tax official of the seizure procedure for a taxpayer's property pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, it is effective to interrupt extinctive prescription in cases where a tax official searches a delinquent taxpayer's house, ship, warehouse, and other places, but fails to carry out the seizure and prepares a search report without any execution thereof.

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 26 of the National Tax Collection Act

Korea

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 99Na8953 delivered on January 21, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the seizure of property other than a duty payment notice, demand notice or demand for delivery, as grounds for suspending extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax." Since "the seizure" refers to the commencement by a tax official of the seizure procedure for a taxpayer's property pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the interruption of extinctive prescription is effective even in cases where a tax official searches a delinquent taxpayer's house, ship, warehouse or other place, but fails to find the object to be seized, and prepares a search report without executing the seizure.

The judgment of the court below on the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the interruption of extinctive prescription of national tax collection right, as otherwise alleged in the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)