Damages

Since the defendant did not commit a tort against the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Seoul Central District Court 2015Kahap59856

taxation does not violate the method of appraisal stipulated in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

D. Although the Plaintiff’s act of contributing real estate in this case was not an onerous donation, it shall be correct.

There are significant defects such as the imposition of capital gains tax on a full basis without understanding.

(ii)Reduction of such unlawful and unjustifiable acts of officials in charge as the Director of theCC head, etc., belonging to the above defendant;

on the wind of the registration of seizure of the Plaintiff’s real property, the Plaintiff’s act of this case around that time

loans of KRW 250,000,000 to be received from a second bank, a principal bank, to operate a person;

In the end, the corporation of this case was in bankruptcy on July 30, 2012 on the grounds of business difficulties.

On August 22, 2014, the final dissolution was made.

3) Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for property damage caused by the above unlawful act, 15,000

Man Won ( = KRW 500,000,000 that the plaintiff could have received as the chief executive officer of the corporation in this case x 2013.

7. From 30 months to December 2015, the sum of 210 million won for mental consolation money and 60 million won for mental consolation money.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay.

B. Determination

1) The premised legal doctrine

Even if any administrative disposition is unlawful, it shall immediately be its own sole basis.

It shall not be readily determined that the act constitutes a tort due to the intention or negligence of the member, and the intention of the public official

The existence or absence of negligence requires a separate judgment, and the reasons therefor are by the administrative agency.

Before the establishment of the interpretation of the relevant statutes, it would result in the performance of the work by taking some theories.

of this Act, even if it was illegal and has caused the result of the wrongful enforcement of that Act, at the time of the disposition.

If it was difficult to expect that an average public official will be in good faith responsible for the same treatment method as or above;

Unless there are special circumstances, this cannot be viewed as due to the negligence of a public official.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da31018 Decided November 1, 2004 and Supreme Court Decision 96Da31018 Decided September 17, 199

Supreme Court Decisions 200Da20731 Decided March 13, 2001, etc.). Meanwhile, the administrative disposition is taken on the other hand.

the official in charge of the public official in charge of the public official in charge shall meet the objective duty of care when the public official in charge of the public official in general

(2) If such administrative disposition is deemed to have lost objective legitimacy, the State;

It is reasonable to deem that the requirements for State liability under Article 2 of the Commercial Act are satisfied. In this case, objective

Whether or not the legitimacy has been lost is the form and purpose of an administrative disposition that constitutes an infringement, and the victim's identity.

All the circumstances, such as whether to participate and the degree of involvement, the type of infringed profit and the degree of damage, etc.

on the basis of the State or the local government's substantial liability to compensate for the damages

It should be determined by examining whether there are reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da30703, Jan. 27, 201).

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, a public official belonging to the director of the tax office, etc. shall impose this case on the plaintiff.

It is examined whether the disposition and the seizure of this case committed a tort.

A) Whether tort due to the defect in demand procedure is established

First of all, the director of the tax office did not go through the demanding procedure against the plaintiff after the instant taxation disposition.

As to the assertion that the seizure of this case was made, this case was examined, and Article 12(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Documents served under Article 8 of the same Act shall be delivered to the person to receive the documents.

Article 10 (2) of the same Act provides that the notice, demand, etc. of tax payment shall take effect at the same time.

service of related documents by mail shall be made by registered mail.

C. However, the fact that no tax payment notice or demand document was served or unlawful is alleged.

The burden of proof is, in principle, against the Plaintiff as a taxpayer (Supreme Court Decision 201 June 1, 2001).

See Supreme Court Decision 9Da1260 Decided 99Da1260, etc.) and Section 9 of this case by only the statement of document No. 9

It is insufficient to deem that a demand notice following the tax disposition did not reach the Plaintiff, and otherwise recognize it.

CC tax, taking into account the descriptions in Section B(1), Section B(2), and Section B(2).

The Secretary General of the Office of Loves who operated by the Plaintiff by registered mail a letter of demand under the instant taxation disposition.

FF, an employee of the instant legal entity at that time, sent to the Board, on January 6, 2012, was the Plaintiff’s Dong company.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B) Illegal acts due to the defect in the instant taxation disposition

The Director of the Tax Office shall take the instant taxation against the Plaintiff in accordance with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s review and decision.

The facts charged are as seen earlier. However, the facts found earlier, evidentiary materials, and pleadings are examined.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the whole, only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff

the tax disposition of this case by the public official in charge, such as the Director of theCC, to which the defendant belongs, against the plaintiff

When the execution of duties, such as the seizure of this case, is deemed to be a normal public official, objective

It lost objective legitimacy in interpreting and applying the duty of care or laws.

It is difficult to see that it reaches the degree of recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Grounds for revocation of the instant taxation disposition are 2 in the course of calculating the assessed value of the instant real estate.

There is a defect that has not gone through the appraisal procedure of more than one appraisal corporation.

The public official in charge of the tax office shall calculate the value of the real estate of this case at that time, E-Local National Tax

The plaintiff was consulted by the advisory committee for determination of taxation facts, and the value of the real estate of this case also

The appraisal value calculated at the auction procedure at the time of acquisition, or the real estate of this case

There is no big difference from the calculated value recorded in the account as a contribution to the person.

(2) The director of the tax office shall supplement the defect and illegality of the instant tax disposition, thereby ensuring legitimate tax assessment.

After calculating the amount of capital gains tax to the same effect as the plaintiff, a disposition to impose capital gains tax to the same effect may be issued

(c)

③ The Plaintiff had a substantial burden of interest on loans relating to the instant real estate.

Therefore, the purport that the instant real estate contribution to the instant legal entity did not constitute an onerous donation.

the account of the instant legal entity, however, the fact that the said loan was transferred from the account of the instant legal entity is original.

A person who is a high-priced person, and the corporation of this case discharges its obligations for the repayment of the above loan on April 9, 2010, and in all

F. The fact that the registration of establishment of a new establishment was cancelled at the time that the establishment of a new establishment was completed is, unless there are circumstances.

The director of the tax office is the corporation of this case, and the plaintiff is therefore liable to pay the above loans.

this property contributed to a corporation shall be subject to this taxation on the assumption that such property is subject to onerous donation.

It is difficult to view that the disposition has been made particularly lacks rationality.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the taxation of this case by the public official in charge, such as the Director of theCC who belongs to the defendant, and this history

Won premiseding that a series of performance of duties, such as attachment, constitutes a tort against the plaintiff

No intentional claim is necessary to examine further the scope of liability for damages, causation, etc.

This reason is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.

Formation base

Korea

February 25, 2016

March 29, 2016

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's act of contributing real estate;

1) On July 14, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) on the auction procedure for real estate rent on July 14, 2009, the Danam-gun, Danam-si, 323-1.

Large 3,678 square meters and two buildings on the ground, and other attached facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case").

After obtaining a successful bid, a medical corporation on October 28, 2009 (hereinafter "the corporation of this case") was called "the corporation of this case".

C) Establishment was established, and on October 29, 2009, the instant real estate was contributed to the instant corporation.

2) At the time that the Plaintiff contributed to the instant corporation, the said real estate was located on the part of the Plaintiff.

BB In order to secure the repayment of loans of KRW 2.05 billion borrowed from the agricultural cooperative;

The maximum debt amount of KRW 2.67 billion, the creditor BB agricultural cooperative, and the debtor’s right to collateral security as the plaintiff

The registration was completed. On April 9, 2010, the corporation of this case repaid the obligation to repay the above loan.

The above establishment registration was cancelled.

B. Imposition of capital gains tax and local income tax on the Plaintiff

1) On December 6, 2011, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the instant real estate contribution by the Plaintiff on December 6, 2011

Income from the transfer of a taxable year in 2009, deeming that such donation constitutes an onerous donation

The imposition of tax amounting to KRW 542,584,640 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant taxation") was made, and the plaintiff did so.

In the absence of payment, on April 5, 2012, the attachment disposition on the shares in apartment and land owned by the plaintiff

Through parts, on April 9, 2012, the seizure registration of each of the above real estate was completed (hereinafter referred to as "the seizure of this case").

c).

2) Meanwhile, on April 4, 2012, D head of D Gun totaling KRW 57,839,510 (= principal tax) 54,258,460

Won + The example that the plaintiff holds against the Bank on the grounds of delinquency in the payment of additional 3,581,050 won

As to the real estate stated in Paragraph (1) above, which was owned by the plaintiff on May 7, 2012.

After taking a seizure disposition, on May 8, 2012, the seizure registration regarding each of the above real estate has been completed.

C. Plaintiff’s objection

1) On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection with respect to the instant taxation disposition, but the EE local government.

On March 29, 2012, the Director dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection.

2) On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the instant taxation disposition.

On September 18, 2012, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service calculated the assessed value of the instant real estate by the instant taxation disposition.

on the basis of the average value, etc. of appraisal values assessed by two or more reliable appraisal institutions;

The violation of the relevant provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act that impose capital gains tax is illegal.

For this reason, the above taxation disposition was revoked.

3) This case’s taxation disposition was revoked and completed on the Plaintiff’s real estate.

Registration of seizure shall be filed on September 26, 2012, and registration of seizure related to local income tax shall be filed on December 18, 2012, respectively.

was removed and cancelled.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Gap evidence 6

(including branch numbers), the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) After the instant taxation disposition, the director of the tax office to which the Defendant belongs pursuant to Article 23 of the National Tax Collection Act

Without going through the promotion process, the seizure of the Plaintiff’s real estate was immediately made; and