(a) Effect of a seizure disposition that meets the requirements for seizure;

(b) The validity of attachment disposition, in cases where the tax amount notified after attachment disposition is paid;

(a)if the attachment requirement is not satisfied, the attachment disposition would be unlawful, but shall not be null and void abundent;

(b) If the amount of tax notified after the attachment disposition is paid, the attachment should be released, but the attachment disposition does not automatically become invalid on the ground that it is true.

Articles 24 and 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

Plaintiff

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu61 delivered on October 20, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, the attachment of the taxpayer's property may be made only when the taxpayer fails to pay in full the national taxes and additional taxes within the designated time limit after receiving a demand notice. However, in exceptional cases where it is deemed impossible to collect the taxpayer's property even in cases where the taxpayer's property is not subject to the notification of tax payment (or demand) and the notified national taxes or delinquent taxes are likely to escape within the designated time limit, and the attachment disposition in cases where the requirements for attachment are not satisfied is illegal disposition, but it cannot be said that the attachment disposition is null and void automatically.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below that the attachment disposition of this case cannot be deemed an invalid and obvious disposition even if there is a defect in the procedure for demanding the attachment disposition of this case, shall be justified, and where the notified amount of tax has been paid, the attachment shall be cancelled, but it shall not be deemed that the attachment disposition is void as a matter of course. Thus, there is no argument to criticize the judgment of the court below in its dissenting opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young