Ansan support-2016-Ban-11413 (No. 28, 2017)

Whether or not the State becomes aware of the grounds for cancellation shall be based on the point of time when the tax official in charge of collecting tax claims, etc. becomes aware of such grounds

When the State exercises its right of revocation against a legal act of a delinquent taxpayer by making a preserved claim the State has the right of revocation, whether the State becomes aware of the starting point of the limitation period, shall be determined on the basis of the tax official’s awareness in charge of the business of collecting, preserving, etc. tax claims, barring any special circumstance.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Na79059

Korea

Gender AAA foreign1

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da114413 decided September 28, 2017

August 28, 2018

October 2, 2018

1. All appeals filed by the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

Section 2/7 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 between the Defendants and the leastB, and each Schedule No. 2 of the separate sheet

On May 9, 2013, with respect to shares of 1/7 among movables and shares of 2/21 among the immovables listed in attached Table 3.

agreement on the division of inherited property shall be revoked. To the largestB, the defendant Sung-A shall be entitled to the real property listed in the Schedule 1.

With respect to shares 2/7 of the property listed in the Schedule 2, the defendant Choi-D shall have the shares of 1/7 of each of the property listed in the Schedule 2;

The ground for restitution due to the revocation of each fraudulent act with respect to shares 2/21 of the real estate recorded in the list;

the transfer registration procedure will be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, or the plaintiff's claim against the defendants.

All of the appeals are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is consistent with Paragraph 2, and it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the Defendants specifically emphasized or added in the trial as stated in Paragraph 3. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts to be dried;

○ The second written judgment of the first instance court is "the second written judgment of the first instance court" and "the second written judgment of the second written judgment of the first instance court" as "the highestB department."

3. Additional determination

A. The assertion and determination on the challenge of the exclusion period

1) The assertion

The Defendants: imposition and collection of capital gains tax; collection and management of taxation data; and ex post facto management, etc.

In light of the fact that ○○ Tax Office’s business process is processed by the national tax integration system, etc., a tax official affiliated with ○○ Tax Office, who is in charge of the duty to levy the inheritance tax, knew of the fact of delinquency in the transfer income tax of the largestB in payment of the inheritance tax of each of the instant real estate and knew of the fact of the consultation on division of the instant inherited property on April 23, 2014, which is the tax office having jurisdiction over the instant tax claim. Therefore, the tax official affiliated with △△ Tax Office, who is in charge of the duty to collect and preserve the instant tax claim, knew of the fact of consultation on division of the instant inherited property, which is a fraudulent act, around April 23, 2014. Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed one year after the date on which the Plaintiff

2) Determination

Tax affairs belonging to △△ secretary in charge of the business of collecting, preserving, etc. the tax claims against the maximum net by only the descriptions or images of Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 12 through 14, and Eul evidence;

Around April 23, 2014, it is insufficient to recognize that a public official knew the existence of a fraudulent act between the largestB and the Defendants. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a procedure for notifying taxation data between the △△△△△ in charge of the collection, preservation, etc. of the instant taxation claims and the ○○○○○○ in charge of the duty of inheritance, etc., the mere fact that the duties of imposing, collecting, collecting, and managing capital gains tax are performed by the integrated national tax system, as alleged by the Defendants, is that the tax officials belonging to ○○○ Tax Office immediately known that there was an agreement on the division of the inherited property of this case between the largest BB and the Defendants on the date of determining whether to impose the inheritance tax from the ○○ Tax Office. Accordingly, this part of

B. Determination as to the non-existence of the instant taxation claim

1) The assertion

Inasmuch as a maximumB failed to receive a payment notice of gift tax and capital gains tax from the head of △△ Tax Office, the said taxation disposition is null and void, and even if not, the instant taxation claim was extinguished upon the lapse of five years after August 31, 201 (Gift) and September 30, 201 (Gift). Accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

2) Determination

A) As to whether to serve a tax notice first, Article 8(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the document under this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served at the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the person in whose name the document is to be served," the main sentence of Article 12(1) provides that "the document to be served under Article 8 shall take effect from the time the person to be served with the document is served," and Article 10 provides that "the service of the document under Article 8 shall be made by means of delivery, mail or electronic delivery (Paragraph 1), "the delivery of the document related to the notice, demand, disposition on default, or order issued by the Government under tax-related Acts shall be made by registered mail (main sentence of paragraph 2)" and Article 31 of the Postal Service Act provides that "the document shall be delivered to the person in whose name the document is to be served: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases prescribed by Presidential Decree; Article 43 of the Enforcement Decree of the Postal Service Act provides that "the delivery or delivery to the addressee by way other than the surface of the mail in question is delivered 97."

In light of the above legal provisions and the legal principles, in full view of the purport of the argument regarding the service of the tax payment notice, the gift tax and the transfer income tax payment notice for the least BB was sent by registered mail, and the fact that each tax payment notice and the demand notice for the transfer income tax sent thereafter was sent to the same address, and there is no evidence to deem that each of the above tax payment notice was returned, it is reasonable to view that the last B had lawfully delivered the gift tax and the transfer income tax payment notice for the maximum BB, and the written statement of the evidence Nos. 17 through 20 (including each number number) alone is insufficient to reverse, and there is no other counter-proof. Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B) Next, pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the extinctive prescription of the right to collect national taxes is interrupted by a tax payment notice (Article 1), urging or demand notice (Article 28(1). According to Article 7(1), “Where a notice of tax payment, a notice of payment, a demand notice, or a notice of demand is served, the payment deadline shall expire on the date when the payment deadline arrives, or within 14 days from the date when the payment deadline arrives (Article 1(1)), or within the date when the payment deadline expires (Article 28(2).”

In light of the above provision, according to the aforementioned facts, the first time due date for payment of capital gains tax for the largestB was until August 31, 201, and changed on October 30, 2011. The capital gains tax-related demand notice reached the largestB on October 20, 2011 (MCC) and the due date for payment of gift tax for the largestB on September 30, 201. However, the demand notice related to gift tax was sent on October 11, 201 and reached the highestB around that time, and the time limit for payment of gift tax has already expired. According to the above recognition facts, the statute of limitations for capital gains tax of this case was valid from October 3, 2011 to October 14, 201, and the Defendants’ assertion that the statute of limitations period from October 14, 2011 to October 14, 2015 had not run from the expiration date of 14th, 2015.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.