With the approval of the director of a regional tax office for the preservation seizure before final determination.

With regard to the approval procedure for the preservation seizure before the final decision, the director of a regional tax office shall grant prior approval by computer and approve the official document in the form of official inquiry.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 69 of the Corporate Tax Act

2015 Ghana 11044 Demurrer

FF

Korea

April 29, 2016

May 27, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The primary purport of claim: Of the dividend table (hereinafter referred to as the "instant dividend table") prepared by the said court on July 17, 2015 with respect to the auction case of real estate rent in Jeju District Court No. 2013, 2013, the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 225,6xx won to KRW 100,000,000.

Preliminary purport: Of the instant dividend table, 225,6x won against the plaintiff, 62,946,3x won, and 527,063,5x won against the defendant, the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be corrected to 611,478,4x won.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with AAAA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “Real Estate No. 2”) as a security deposit of KRW 100 million, the Plaintiff paid to the Non-Party Company KRW 20,000 to the Non-Party Company on the date of the contract, and the balance of KRW 8,000,000 on October 31, 2012, respectively, on which October 31, 2012 would receive the instant real estate No. 2. The Plaintiff paid to the Non-Party Company as a security deposit on October 22, 2012 and October 31, 2012, and obtained a fixed date on November 15, 2012.

B. On October 26, 2012, the Defendant seized the real estate of the non-party company including each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) (hereinafter “instant attachment”).

C. Meanwhile, the BB Saemaul Fund, the mortgagee of the non-party company, applied for a voluntary auction on each of the instant real estate. On October 25, 2013, Jeju District Court Decision 2015Mo124 decided the voluntary auction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”).

D. In the instant auction case, on July 17, 2015, the executing court prepared the instant dividend table to the Plaintiff, among the amount of KRW 900,125,125,1 XX, the amount to be actually distributed out of the proceeds from the sale of each of the instant real estate, 225,60,60 won as the lessee, and the Defendant, as the seizure right holder, who distributes the amount of KRW 527,063,50 to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the amount of dividends

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the first place, pursuant to Article 24(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, the director of the tax office did not obtain the approval of the director of the regional tax office prior to the seizure of this case. ② Article 24(2) and 24(5)2 of the National Tax Collection Act did not confirm the national tax until three months have elapsed since the date of the seizure of this case. ③ The taxpayer did not notify the non-party company of the above national tax, ④ the non-party company did not fall under the subject of the corporate tax assessment at the time, ④ the non-party company did not fall under the subject of the corporate tax assessment, and ⑤ even if the non-party company did not report the remaining amount of each of the real estate at the time, and thus, the non-party company did not become liable to pay the non-party company since it did not report under Article 69(1) of the Corporate Tax Collection Act. Accordingly, the attachment of this case remains significant and apparent, and thus, it should be corrected to delete the dividend amount of the defendant to the non-party company as 200,00.

Preliminaryly, the remaining dividends distributed to the creditor of the first priority should be distributed in proportion to the dividends. As such, the amount of 225,60 won against the plaintiff of the instant dividend table shall be 62,946,3 XX, and the amount of 527,063,50 won against the defendant of the dividend table of this case shall be corrected as 61,478,40 won, respectively.

B. Defendant’s assertion

In case of the seizure before the final decision, the tax office shall prepare a public document and apply for the separate approval in electronic form at the same time. The director of a regional tax office shall grant prior approval in electronic form, and the director of a regional tax office shall also apply for the seizure before the final decision is made to the director of a regional tax office on October 24, 2012, and the director of a regional tax office applied for the seizure after obtaining approval on October 26, 2012, and the seizure after obtaining approval on October 31, 2012, there is no defect in the procedure.

Furthermore, in the course of the investigation, the non-party company was virtually closed at the place of business without permission. On January 30, 2012, the non-party company completed the registration of ownership preservation on April 23, 2012 as to each of the instant real estate, and the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on October 18, 2012 due to the cancellation of the agreement, and the registration of ownership transfer was subject to occasional assessment under the Corporate Tax Act due to the circumstance of concern about the possibility of tax evasion. Furthermore, in the case of the subject of occasional assessment, the non-party company is not subject to prior notice of taxation due to its nature, and the notice was served on the non-party company on December 20, 2012, and the notice was not served on the non-party company on December 20, 2012. In addition, the plaintiff and the defendant are not in the same order.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. First, with respect to the existence of a significant and procedural defect in the attachment of this case, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 1 and 5, i.e., the director of the tax office, on October 25, 2012, upon filing an application with the director of the regional tax office for the preservation and seizure of the national tax regarding the non-party company. On October 26, 2012, the seizure of each of the instant real estate was made with the director of the regional tax office on October 31, 2012. In general, the director of the regional tax office, upon filing an application with the director of the regional tax office, made an application for a separate approval by means of computer, and the director of the regional tax office appears to have obtained the approval by the director of the regional tax office on computerized basis, and even if it appears difficult to have obtained the approval by the director of the regional tax office on the attachment of this case, it is difficult to view the approval by the director of the local tax office on the attachment.

B. Next, as to whether there is no claim for the seizure of this case, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account as to whether there is no claim for the seizure of this case, Gap's 5 through 7, Eul's 2, 3, and 6's respective entries and arguments, i.e., the investigation into the non-party company from September 24, 2012 to October 26, 2012. In fact, the fact that the investigation process was discontinued, the non-party company was conducted an auction on its own property immediately after six months, and the report of business closure was made on April 30, 2013. The non-party company did not have any grounds to be deemed liable to pay corporate tax or corporate tax from November 15, 2012 to June 30, 2012. The non-party company did not have any other grounds to be deemed to be subject to the corporate tax from the seizure of this case. According to the proviso to Article 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, the non-party company did not have any grounds to be deemed to be subject to pay corporate tax occasional.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the attachment of this case is null and void due to the lack of notification as to the above corporate tax, and in full view of the purport of the entry in Eul evidence No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the CCT notified the non-party company of the determination of national tax 1,314,748, and 7 XX on December 3, 2012. The above notice can be recognized that it was served on the non-party company on December 20, 2012. Furthermore, the fact that there was no prior notification procedure prior to the attachment cannot be deemed as a significant and obvious defect as long as the attachment disposition becomes null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992). The Plaintiff’s assertion (3) is without merit.

4. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

The defendant's seizure of this case took place on October 26, 2012, and the fact that the fixed date of the plaintiff's second real estate of this case was November 15, 2012 after the above seizure is the same as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to recognize the defendant's distribution order and the same order or priority as the defendant's distribution order according to the seizure of this case, such as that the plaintiff constitutes the deposit subject to the top priority protection under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.