logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
판결에 의해 압류처분이 무효로 확정시 압류관계 체납세액의 소멸시효 중단여부
조세심판원 질의회신 | 1997-02-03 | 징세46101-260 | 기타
Document Number

Disciplinary Tax 46101-260 ( October 04, 1997)

Items of Taxation

Flag

Journal

If the attachment of the compensation money deposited in the delinquent taxpayer's name becomes final and conclusive, the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the attachment shall not be effective.

Congress RESALS

1. In the case of an inquiry, the attachment of real estate is valid, and the extinctive prescription is suspended by the date of cancellation of the attachment; 2. If the attachment of the land expropriation compensation deposited in the delinquent taxpayer’s name becomes final and conclusive that the attachment is null and void, the interruption of extinctive prescription due to such attachment is void;

Related statutes

Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Extinctive Prescription)

Main text

1. A summary of the contents of inquiry;

(a) Facts;

(1) December 31, 1990: After the payment period has been subject to the first write-off of non-property as of 30.06.30, 1991.

(2) On November 01, 1991: The disposition agency found the property of the person liable to pay tax and thus ordered the attachment to the lower order.

(3) On 05.28, 1992: The property subject to attachment disposition was abolished in the lawsuit because it did not transfer only the ownership, even though it was sold and sold to another person by the person liable for duty payment in October 6, 1989.

(4) On December 31, 1993: A lawsuit filed by the Nonparty who won the lawsuit after a final and conclusive judgment, the disposition agency cancelled the seizure of this case and made a disposition of double-lane loss, and the winning party returned land transaction permission on the ground that it was farmland of a local government, while the ownership in the public register was maintained in the taxpayer's name because it was impossible to transfer ownership.

(5) On 30, 1996.06.30: The disposition agency again cancelled the disposition of deficit, and seize the deposit money, when the land was deposited in the name of the obligor on the public register in the course of depositing the compensation by the land expropriation of the government to the court.

(6) On November 1996, the non-party won a lawsuit against the disposition agency for invalidation of seized claims.

(b) A summary of the inquiry;

The running time of statutory extinction;

2. Relevant tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes (Acts, Enforcement Decree, Enforcement Rule, and General Provisions);

Article 27 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Extinctive Prescription)

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Interruption and Suspension of Prescription)

○ Article 186 of the Civil Act

arrow