Extinctive prescription of a tax claim shall commence from the date of cancellation of attachment.

The extinctive prescription of a taxation claim is under way from the date of release of attachment, and the registration of attachment based on the attachment disposition of this case was made on January 24, 201, before five years elapse from the date of release of attachment, and the extinctive prescription has not expired.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012Guhap22577 Nullification of a seizure disposition

MaAA

Director of the District Office

November 16, 2012

December 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On January 17, 2011, the defendant confirmed that the attachment disposition against the plaintiff is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, while operating the danran with the trade name BBP, failed to pay the total value-added tax and global income tax amounting to KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant taxation claim number”).

B. Accordingly, based on the instant taxation claim, the Defendant released the attachment on the following grounds that the Plaintiff’s property was seized more than six times, and that it was living insurance.

C. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased apartment units listed in the separate sheet from thisCC and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Based on the instant taxation claim, the Defendant issued a seizure disposition on January 17, 201 (hereinafter “instant seizure disposition”) and completed the seizure registration on January 24, 201 as the receipt No. 3622.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, evidence A through 4 (including household numbers), and evidence 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the attachment disposition of this case is invalid

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The cancellation of attachment on August 14, 2009 on the DNA Life Insurance Account (SP 6) does not correspond to the cancellation of attachment under Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11125, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply) and should be viewed as the cancellation of attachment. Therefore, the interruption of prescription by attachment from July 30, 2009, based on the retroactive effect of cancellation, has no effect of the cancellation of prescription by attachment from July 30, 2009, and the attachment disposition of this case based on the taxation claim of this case has to be completed five years, and the defect is serious and obvious and invalid.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 31 subparag. 13 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "a small financial property necessary for the maintenance of livelihood of a delinquent taxpayer as one of the property prohibited from seizure, which is prescribed by Presidential Decree". Article 36 of the Enforcement Decree provides that "the term "the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree" refers to insurance proceeds, surrender value, maturity refund, and personal deposit of which the amount of payment is less than 000 won, and each person's balance is less than 00 won," and the DNA life insurance account paid in 00 won does not constitute the property prohibited from seizure. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the tax claim of this case shall be interrupted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1102, Apr. 25, 200). In addition, since the defendant released the seizure of DNA life account on August 14, 2009, the release of the seizure becomes effective from the time when the seizure of the tax claim of this case is completed, and the period of the seizure is under 214 years before the date of the seizure.

(2) On the other hand, Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act provides for the effect of cancellation on the premise that the plaintiff becomes liable for cancellation of attachment under Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act. However, Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act provides for the necessary grounds for cancellation under paragraph (1), and the grounds for voluntary cancellation under paragraph (2). Paragraph (1) provides that the former act constitutes a binding discretionary act, and Paragraph (2) provides that the taxpayer is legally guaranteed the right to request cancellation, and it does not exclude the taxpayer from the discretionary right by the tax authorities (the cancellation is an administrative act favorable to the delinquent taxpayer, and even if the tax authorities recognize discretionary power, it is not likely to infringe on the taxpayer's rights. On the other hand, the request for cancellation of attachment is a legislative decision that restricts the taxpayer's refusal of attachment by the tax authorities. On the other hand, the cancellation is retroactively excluded from the previous legal effect on the ground of defect at the time of the disposition, and the situation after the disposition does not change its legal effect on the future and its nature, and the defendant's assertion that it does not exclude the previous financial obligation of cancellation of attachment.

3. Conclusion

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