The plaintiff's assertion is without merit since the disposition of seizure of delinquent tax amount and collection of public auction is not illegal.

Despite the demand for the tax amount in arrears, each registration of seizure on each real estate in order to not pay the tax amount in arrears, additional dues, and increased additional dues was entrusted, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit because it is not unlawful since the disposition of collection such as lawful distribution after the public auction procedure

2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing global income tax, etc.

XX

Daejeon director of the tax office and one other

May 23, 2012

June 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. From among global income tax received by the director of the Daejeon District Tax Office on August 10, 201 to the Plaintiff on July 31, 1995, the increased additional tax of KRW 000 on the tax amount notified to the Plaintiff on July 31, 1995 and KRW 000 on August 31, 1996, the increased additional tax of KRW 000 on the tax amount notified to the Plaintiff on August 31, 1996, and the increased additional tax of KRW 00 on the tax amount notified to the payment period on November 30, 1996, and KRW 00 on April 30, 200, and KRW 00 on the tax amount notified to the Plaintiff on April 30, 201, the increased increased additional tax of KRW 00 on the tax amount notified to the Plaintiff on June 30, 201, which was revoked by the head of the Daejeon District Tax Office’s demand to revoke the imposition of KRW 10,000.

2. Among value-added taxes received by the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Tax Office on August 10, 201, the imposition of increased tax amount of KRW 000 on September 30, 1994 and KRW 000 on December 31, 1994 on the payment period of KRW 000 and KRW 000 on the increased tax amount of KRW 100 on April 1, 1995 (the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of increased tax amount of KRW 100 on August 10, 201). However, the head of Seo-gu District Tax Office issued a demand notice to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would not pay taxes, and then received KRW 00 on August 10, 201 through the public sale procedure, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the imposition of increased tax amount of KRW 10 on the sales amount of KRW 100 on the above sales amount).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The head of the Daejeon District Tax Office imposed each of the imposition of KRW 000,00, the global income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on 1995, KRW 000, the comprehensive income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on 1996, KRW 000, and KRW 000, the respective transfer income tax reverted to the Plaintiff on 2001. The imposition of KRW 00,000, the respective value-added tax reverted to the Plaintiff on 194, and KRW 000, the value-added tax reverted to the Plaintiff on 195. However, the Plaintiff did not pay each of the above taxes.

B. The Defendants urged the Plaintiff to pay the tax in arrears, but owned by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not pay the tax in arrears, and entrusted the Plaintiff with the registration of 97 forest land and 97 forest land and 71,710 square meters in Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, 205 forest and 205 forest and 71,710 square meters in Dong-dong, Dong-dong, and 548-1 river of 548-3, and 146 square meters in Dong-dong, 548-4 and 106 square meters in Dong-dong, 539-2 forest and 36 square meters in Dong-dong, 539-2 forest and 539 square meters in Dong-dong, 531 and 79 square meters in Dong-dong, 57 forest and 2772 forest and 69,012 square meters in Dong-dong, Dong-dong, 202-11,537 square meters in each of this case.

C. On January 24, 2011, the head of the Daegu Gyeongbuk branch office delegated the public auction by the Defendants, sent a notice of public auction on each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. On April 28, 2011, the public auction procedure was conducted and the final successful bidder was decided to sell.

D. On August 10, 201, according to the Korea Asset Management Corporation’s proposed allocation of the branch office, the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Tax Office allocated KRW 000 and the head of Daejeon Tax Office KRW 000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 6, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Main Safety Defenses by the Defendants

The notification of additional dues and increased additional dues is not a disposition that is subject to a lawsuit for appeal, so the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

The additional dues and aggravated additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are a kind of incidental dues imposed in the meaning of interest for arrears on unpaid portion if national taxes are not paid by the due date. If national taxes are not paid by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date without the due date of payment by the due date of payment by the due date, they are naturally created and the amount thereof is determined pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the same Act. In order to commence the due date of payment by the due date of payment by the due date of the due date, it is possible to urge the payment by the due date. Thus, if the due date of payment is unfair or defective in the due date of payment by the due date of the due date, it shall be possible for the tax authorities to file a suit for cancellation, but no additional dues and aggravated additional dues shall be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2013, Sep. 22, 200).

However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation is a disposition to collect additional dues and aggravated additional dues. As such, the Defendants’ defense on the premise that the Plaintiff seeks revocation of the disposition to impose additional dues and increased additional dues is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

B. Determination

The director of the Daejeon District Tax Office imposed global income tax of 195, 00 won for global income tax of 1996, 000 won for transfer income tax of 1996, 000 won for transfer income tax of 201, and 000 won for each transfer income tax of 1994. The director of the Daejeon District Tax Office imposed imposition of each of the above taxes of 00 won for value-added tax of 1994,000 won for value-added tax of 1995, and 00 won for value-added tax of 1995, but the plaintiff did not pay the above taxes; despite the demands of the defendants for the above amount of taxes in arrears, the defendants who did not pay the above taxes in arrears, and the increased amount of taxes in arrears for each of the real estate of this case, were not subject to the request of the head of the Daejeon District Tax Office to the plaintiff on September 15, 1995, and the head of the Daejeon District Tax Office entrusted the above imposition of taxes to the plaintiff on September 13, 14, 20.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.