[Defendant-Appellee] Bai (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Mapo Tax Office

may 27, 1980

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The designation of the material tax liability for the amount of the attached tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff as of August 30, 1980 shall be revoked. The judgment that the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

In light of the following facts: (a) No. 5 of this case’s certificate No. 1 and No. 6 of this case’s certificate No. 7 (Delivery Certificate); (b) No. 1, No. 2 of this case’s certificate No. 8; (c) No. 10 of this case’s certificate No. 10; and (d) No. 10 of this case’s certificate No. 1 and No. 2 of this case’s certificate No. 9; (b) the Plaintiff’s disposal of real estate was 9 of this case’s title No. 7 of this case’s transfer of real estate to Non-Party No. 97 of this case’s transfer of real estate to Non-Party No. 97 of this case’s transfer of real estate to Non-Party No. 97 of this case’s transfer of real estate to Non-Party No. 97 of this case’s transfer of real estate to Non-Party No. 97 of this case’s transfer of ownership.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case that designated the plaintiff as a material taxpayer late August 30, 1980, which had been more than one year ago, was unlawful since the disposition of this case was made against the restriction of "one-year" under the proviso of Article 42 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the proviso of Article 42 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not impose physical tax liability on the property used as a security one-year period from the due date of payment of national taxes in arrears. The plaintiff's notice of this case was issued on March 15, 1979 and April 15, 1980 as the due date of payment of national taxes in arrears to the non-party 179 and notified the payment of this case as of August 30, 1980. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of this case was made under the provisional registration of November 7, 1978 and the registration was made under the name of the plaintiff for the security purpose of this case.

Therefore, the real estate of this case constitutes the property transferred to the non-party designated as the property transferred to the non-party designated as the property, and there is no other property to collect delinquent national taxes, and thus the disposition of this case according to the collection procedure under Articles 13 and 12 of the National Tax Collection Act based on Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is justifiable. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per

June 24, 1982

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)