Revocation of revocation of cancellation

Attachment is prohibited even in cases of a third party cemetery which is not a cemetery of a delinquent taxpayer or his/her family;

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

Article 31 subparagraph 4 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Guhap62397 Revocation of revocation of revocation of attachment

United States***2

Vice Director of Central Regional Tax Office 1

on July 26, 2017

on October 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The cancellation or refusal of attachment by the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office against the plaintiffs on June 8, 2016; and

On August 24, 2016, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the cancellation of attachment by the head of the tax office on the disposition to revoke the cancellation of attachment against the Plaintiff’s Property

(c)

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고들은 피상속인 망 유@@(이하 '망인'이라 한다)의 상속인들로서 망인이 2010. 1. 23. 사망함에 따라 망인의 재산인 별지 목록 기재 각 토지(이하 '이 사건 각 토지'라 한다)를 상속하였다.

나. 고양세무서장은 2011. 11. 8. 원고들에 대하여 상속세 9,983,303,900원을 경정・고지하였으나, 원고들의 불복을 일부 받아들여 2015. 8.경 이를 7,876,784,248원으로 감액경정하였다. 또한 피고 파주세무서장은 2011. 5. 31. 원고 유$$에 대하여 2011년 귀속 양도소득세 34,443,340원을 부과처분하였다.

C. The Defendants seized each of the instant land by having the Plaintiffs’ above-mentioned inheritance tax and capital gains tax in arrears as the preserved right, and the Plaintiffs applied for the cancellation of attachment on May 17, 2016 on the ground that each of the instant land constitutes a graveyard and constitutes prohibited property under Article 31 subparag. 4 of the National Tax Collection Act.

D. Accordingly, on June 8, 2016, the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the defendant Jungbu Regional Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") rejected the plaintiffs' request for cancellation of attachment on the following grounds: on August 24, 2016, the director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the management of the business of leasing each of the land of this case leased by the plaintiffs from the plaintiffs from the Foundation Foundation, and each of the land of this case is the rental business operator, and the plaintiffs are the third party's cemetery who leased the right to use the cemetery from the above Foundation. Thus, each of the land of this case is not a property subject to prohibition of attachment under Article 31 of the National Tax Collection Act.

E. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on September 2, 2016, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on December 13, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 18

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since 000, each land of this case, which is an incorporated foundation, is established with approximately 7,00 graves according to a contract entered into with cemetery users, each land of this case constitutes a cemetery. As such, limiting the scope to the cases where a cemetery referred to in Article 31 subparag. 4 of the National Tax Collection Act is used as a memorial or worship for a delinquent taxpayer or his/her family members living together, it is contrary to the principle of no taxation without law. Therefore, each land of this case constitutes a property subject to prohibition of seizure under Article 31 subparag. 4 of the National Tax Collection Act. On the contrary premise, the dispositions of this case, which were made before,

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws is governed by the text of the law, barring special circumstances.

Although it is not allowed to expand or analogically interpret without any reasonable reason, if it is necessary to clarify the meaning through the mutual interpretation between the laws and regulations, the tax law states shall be deemed to be a tax law state.

To the extent that it does not undermine the legal stability and predictability oriented by its significance, it is inevitable to make a combined interpretation taking into account the legislative intent, purpose, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008.2).

15. See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4438 Decided 15.

Article 31 subparag. 4 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the property subject to the prohibition of seizure under each subparagraph of Article 31, including “goods necessary for religious rites, worships, tombstones and graveyardss,” and the property subject to the prohibition of seizure under each subparagraph of Article 32, which is concurrently stipulated under each subparagraph of Article 32, such as delinquent taxpayers, their family members living together with delinquent taxpayers, and their family members, shall be clearly indicated (Article 31 subparag. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 14 above), and the provisions which do not specify it (Article 31 subparag. 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 through 13, and each subparagraph of Article 32 above). Article 31 subparag. 4 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the property subject to the prohibition of seizure under the National Tax Collection Act shall be limited to the property belonging to the delinquent taxpayers, and the property subject to the prohibition of seizure under each subparagraph of Article 31, supra, shall not be interpreted as an exception to the above provision on the property subject to the prohibition of seizure.

2) According to the facts acknowledged in light of the above legal principles as seen in the above 1th, it can be said that a cemetery user’s grave entered into a contract with a foundation 00000 on each of the instant land has been installed. However, there is no assertion or proof as to the necessity of the above grave to be removed and worship by the plaintiffs. The disposition of refusing the plaintiffs’ request to cancel the attachment of each of the instant land is lawful. The plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.