Busan District Court 2014Guhap21685 ( November 20, 2014)

In order to apply the principle of good faith to the tax authorities' actions, the tax authorities should name the public opinion statement that is the object of trust to taxpayers.

It is difficult to see that the Defendant’s public opinion had been expressed, and even if such public opinion had been expressed, it is difficult to deem that there was no cause attributable to the Plaintiff as to the trust of such Defendant’s public opinion.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741 Decided October 29, 2009

2014Nu23055 Nullification of attachment disposition, etc.

AA

Head of the tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap21685 Decided November 20, 2014

August 26, 2015

September 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On December 3, 1998, the Defendant confirmed that each attachment disposition against the land size of 291-1, 291-1, and the land size of 438 forest land and 162 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, which was made against the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on December 3, 1998 is invalid (the Plaintiff at the first instance court on June 21, 201, stated that the attachment disposition against the land size of 20 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, the District Court revoked this part of the claim when the attachment was revoked by the Defendant).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court's explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on a new argument made by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

가. 고쳐 쓰는 부분 9제1심 판결 이유의 "1.의 나., 다."항 부분(제2면 제8행 ~ 제3면 제1행 �

“B. The chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the shipping substitute under this Act shall have the due date for payment on May 9, 1998 as of May 31, 1998.

After calculating the transfer value of the instant transferred real estate as the transfer value of KRW 60,441,390, acquisition value and necessary expenses of KRW 10,403,043, gains from transfer, KRW 50,038,350, capital gains tax imposed KRW 8,67,200.

C. As the Plaintiff did not pay the said capital gains tax by the due date, on December 3, 1998, the head of the Korea Shipping Tax Office entrusted the registration of seizure of 1/2 shares out of 438 forest land and 162 square meters (hereinafter “2 real estate of this case”) among 162 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun, the Plaintiff owned on December 3, 1998, and completed the registration of seizure of 1/2 shares out of 438 forest land and 162 square meters (hereinafter “the first real estate of this case”). On the same date, with respect to the first real estate of this case, the registration of seizure was completed under Article 0000 of the Busan-do District Court’s branch branch’s receipt of branch court’s support for the second real estate of this case (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”).

On the other hand, due to the amendment of the Enforcement Rule of the Office Regulation of the National Tax Service and its affiliated organizations, which was enforced on September 1, 1999, the duties of the director of the Maritime Tax Office related to the disposition of this case were transferred to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant" for convenience) as part of the jurisdiction of the Maritime Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Tax Office and its affiliated organization was integrated into the jurisdiction of the Maritime Tax Office, and the defendant completed the registration of the change of the seizure right holder who changed the title of the registration of the seizure under the disposition of this case from the Maritime Tax Office to the Maritime Tax Office (refer to the evidence No. 1 and No. 71 of No. 1 of the Maritime Tax Office) on the 2nd real estate of this case from the Ulsan District Court on December 9, 1999 by the receipt of No. 000000 on August 4, 2015 for the 1st real estate of this case from the Maritime Tax Office.

B. Determination as to a new argument made by the Plaintiff at the trial

1) As to the assertion of extinctive prescription

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the disposition of this case was lawful, the Defendant did not cancel the disposition of this case after disposing of the loss of KRW 9,331,660, out of the capital gains tax (including the increased amount) from the transfer of the transferred real property of this case on November 25, 1998, and then did not cancel the disposition of this case. Even if the disposition of this case was cancelled, the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff thereof. Thus, the State’s tax claim against the Plaintiff’s delinquent amount, which was disposed of as mentioned above, was expired and expired. Accordingly, the disposition of this case based on the extinguished tax claim

B) Determination

The plaintiff's assertion is that the statute of limitations for the right to collect national taxes in arrears due to the disposition of this case has expired due to the defendant's above disposal of deficit. Thus, since the statute of limitations has run again from the date of the disposal of deficit, and the statute of limitations has expired on November 25, 2003, it can be seen that the statute of limitations has expired.

The Framework Act on National Taxes and the right to collect a national tax shall not be exercised for five years from the time it is exercisable.

The extinctive prescription shall expire (Article 27(1)), and the statute of limitations for the collection right by seizure shall be interrupted (Article 28(1)4), and the suspended statute of limitations shall begin to run anew from the expiration of the period until the release of attachment (Article 28(2)4). Unlike the other provisions, the Framework Act on National Taxes, etc. does not provide for the grounds for the interruption of the period for the interruption of a disposal of deficit on November 25, 1998, as long as the seizure disposition is continued on December 3, 1998, regardless of whether there was a disposal of deficit on December 3, 1998, the interruption of the extinctive prescription for the national tax claim by the State continues to continue to be effective, and this part of the claim that is a seafarer on a different premise is without merit.

2) As to the additional dues

A) The plaintiff's assertion

On September 30, 1999, the plaintiff paid 300,000 won of the defendant's occasional high-income tax shares of 300,000 won and received the receipt of 'wholly paid'. Since then, the plaintiff made a payment notice or demand related to the payment to the plaintiff as the reason that the defendant has a delinquent amount, or made a cancellation

The plaintiff did not know that there is no fact that there is a obligation to pay capital gains tax. Therefore, since there is a justifiable reason that the plaintiff did not pay capital gains tax even if there is a unpaid transfer income tax, e.g., the seizure portion equivalent to the additional and increased additional taxes among the disposition of the plaintiff in this case is invalid in the statement of grounds for appeal, e.g., the plaintiff claimed the imposition of "additional and increased additional taxes" on the ground that the defendant did not pay capital gains tax of KRW 8,677,200 in advance to the plaintiff in this case. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant imposed "additional and increased additional taxes" on the ground that the defendant did not pay capital gains tax of KRW 5,726,60 in advance to the plaintiff in this case, but there is no evidence to prove that he imposed "additional taxes" separately

B) Determination

If a national tax is not paid by the due date, the additional dues shall be collected in addition to the amount of the national tax notified in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act, if the increased additional dues are not paid by the due date after the due date for payment.

It has the nature of damages for delay that should be borne in whole or in part, and it is naturally caused and determined by the provisions of the law as the expiration of the payment period without the procedure for establishing additional dues by the person who has the right to impose tax, but if the payment demand is unfair or procedural defect occurs, it is only possible to seek cancellation of the collection disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10521, Oct. 8, 1993).

However, there is a justifiable reason that the plaintiff's above assertion is not paid capital gains tax.

The plaintiff's assertion that the collection disposition of additional dues and increased additional dues (i.e., demand for the payment of additional dues and increased additional dues) is revoked or invalidated is not asserted and presented as to the invalidity of the disposition (i.e., demand for the payment of additional dues and increased additional dues) is not limited to "justifiable cause not attributable to the plaintiff's neglect of obligation to pay the capital gains tax," and even if the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff are acknowledged, the collection disposition of the above additional dues and increased additional dues and increased additional dues and subsequent disposition on default cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course), additional dues and increased additional taxes are not acceptable.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.