Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2011dan34132 ( December 21, 2011)

The plaintiff's assertion that he was unable to receive a notice of tax payment cannot be recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the imposition or seizure of capital gains tax for a long period exceeding 10 years, including partial transfer of shares, after seizure, and that the Plaintiff’s domicile was at least 10 years on the Plaintiff’s resident registration, the Plaintiff appears to have received a tax notice regarding the imposition of capital gains tax.

2012 Ghana 3262 De-registration of seizure of immovables

Park A. 2 others

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2011No34132 Decided December 21, 2011

July 4, 2012

July 25, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of real estate seizure completed by the receipt No. 59306 on May 22, 1997 with respect to the portion of 795/1020 of each real estate listed in the attached list among the real estate listed in the attached list, and Suwon District Court's Ansan Registry

1. Basic facts

A. On May 19, 197, the mining specification report under the defendant's jurisdiction attached the seizure (hereinafter "the seizure of this case") among the OOO 000 m20 m2 (hereinafter "the forest of this case"), and the 795/1020 m20 m2 (hereinafter "the seizure of this case"), and on May 22, 1997, the registration of seizure was completed under Article 59306 of the receipt of the Ansan District Court's Ansan Branch's Registry (OO 00 m372 m2 (hereinafter "the forest of this case").

B. The instant forest land was divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 24, 2011, and the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached sheet was owned by the Plaintiffs, while the real estate listed in paragraph 2 was owned by the Plaintiff RedF, and the real estate listed in paragraph 3 was registered as owned by the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsured Facts, Gap evidence 1 (including natural disasters), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs asserted that the above taxation disposition is null and void, and that such defect is succeeded to the seizure of this case, which is the procedure for disposition on default, and that the registration of seizure completed in the forest of this case should be cancelled as the registration of invalidation.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiffs asserts that the instant taxation disposition on the transfer income tax of this case did not receive a reminder, and that the said taxation disposition was written off as to the amount in arrears, and that the transfer income tax was imposed even if the transfer margin did not accrue, and that the instant pressure based on such taxation disposition is null and void.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the taxation disposition, which served as the basis for the instant seizure, was served on the Plaintiff

In full view of the following facts: (i) the taxpayer was under 1; (ii) the taxpayer was under 0 years ago; (iii) the taxpayer was under 0 years ago; and (iv) the taxpayer was under 00 m3; and (v) the taxpayer was under 00 m264 m2; and (v) the taxpayer was under 15 March 197 that the taxpayer was under 00 won of transfer income tax imposed on the taxpayer; (v) the taxpayer was under 0 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 0 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 10 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 0 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 10 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 3 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 3 years thereafter; and (v) the taxpayer was under 196 m2; and (v) the taxpayer was under 19.7 years thereafter.

(2) Determination on the remainder of the argument

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Eul evidence 7 through 9, these days, and these days, E, from YA on December 21, 1992, they were awarded a bid of 00 forest 28,264m2 in YA, YA, YA, YY, PYYY, YA, PYYY, YA, PYYYY, YA, at the time of transfer, the transfer income tax shall be calculated at the standard market price at the time of transfer under the income tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of transfer, and more specifically, the transfer income tax was imposed on the plaintiff YA on the basis of 190 individual officially announced land price in 190 and 00 won which was 192 officially assessed individual land price in 192, and it is difficult for YE to issue a demand notice on April 20, 199 with respect to the imposition of the transfer income tax of this case, and the plaintiff YA did not recognize the transfer income tax of this case as 30.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and all appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.