Supreme Court-2016-C-239840 ( April 28, 2017)

If it is necessary to detect the existence of legal relations and to eliminate anxietys and risks, it is recognized that it is necessary to confirm the existence of legal relations.

The plaintiff's tax liability shall be treated as having been fully extinguished by the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff's rights or legal status may not be affected by the defendant, such as being threatened or obstructed by the defendant. Therefore, there is no benefit to seek confirmation against the defendant as a lawsuit by confirming the absence of the tax liability.

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Na46295 Confirmation of Non-existence of Obligation

AA

BBB

August 25, 2017

September 29, 2017

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. It is confirmed that there is no obligation listed in the attached Form to the plaintiff's defendant.

person.

1. Basic facts

A. From February 200 to May 17, 2002, the Plaintiff operated the manufacturing industry under the trade name, “CC industry electricity,” and the Plaintiff had a tax liability, such as the attached Form, related to the operation of the said business.

B. On the other hand, on June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract of 26,480 won of monthly insurance premium (the name of the goods: non-distribution cancer insurance type 2) with the beneficiary as the Plaintiff on June 25, 2004. On January 23, 2006, the Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s right (the claim for insurance money, the claim for repayment of insurance premium, etc.) based on the above insurance contract against the DDR Co., Ltd. under Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the above insurance contract becomes effective on December 1, 2006 and the plaintiff's right to claim refund against DDR Co., Ltd. due to the expiration of the prescription on November 30, 2008, the seizure by the defendant's disposition on default became null and void due to the absence of the seized claim, and eventually, the defendant's right to claim international collection of the above tax obligation becomes null and void after the lapse of the prescription of five years.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful because there is no benefit in the lawsuit of this case.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and it is necessary and appropriate for the confirmation of the existence of the legal relationship as a judgment because the plaintiff's rights or legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Nu476, Mar. 23, 1982).

B. In light of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant is deemed not to have any tax liability of the plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet, and according to the FF Tax Office's written evidence No. 1 to 4, the FF Tax Office can treat all the tax liability as completed, and recognize the fact that all the seizure of the plaintiff was cancelled and that the result was notified to the plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff has no interest in seeking confirmation against the defendant as a lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of tax liability, such as the attached sheet, since the plaintiff's rights or legal status are unlikely to be affected by the defendant

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is different from this conclusion.

Since it is unfair, it is revoked and dismissed the lawsuit of this case.