In light of the fact that the defect of the instant taxation disposition is serious and clear and that it cannot be seen as null and void as a matter of course, no liability for damages exists.

Even if there was an error in the taxation of this case, it is difficult to view that the public official in charge of the taxation of this case and the seizure were negligent in performing his duties, in view of the degree that the loss suffered by the plaintiff was lost to the extent that the defendant should compensate for the loss, or the public official in general who performs his duties was a standard.

2012 Gohap 5120 Damages, any

Park AAA

Republic of Korea 1 other

June 26, 2013

July 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

From December 21, 2009, the Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum 20% per annum from the next day to the day of service of a duplicate of the application for modification of claims and cause of claims in this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) The head of the Ulsan District Tax Office and the head of the Ulsan Metropolitan City subject to taxation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant taxation”);

1) The representative director of the BB Company (which was changed on September 8, 1998 to CCC Construction Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) was the representative director of the BB Company, and used 000 won out of the purchase price of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) registered in the name of B Company in the land development recompense register of the Land Partition Adjustment Association (hereinafter referred to as “B Company”) from February 26, 2001 to May 3, 2001.

2) The director of the Ulsan District Tax Office sold the instant land owned by BB to DD comprehensive construction in 199, and deemed that the Plaintiff, the representative director of BB, used 00 won for personal use in 2001. On March 2, 2007, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income and notified the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office of the change in the amount of income. On May 15, 2007, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office issued a notice of the change in the amount of income to the Plaintiff. Based on the above notice of change in the amount of income, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office, based on the above notice of change in the amount of income, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 000,000 remaining after deducting the already paid amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,0000, which is to be paid on behalf of the head of the Ulsan Metropolitan City.

(b) Attachment by the head of the competent tax office in Ulsan Metropolitan City;

1) On February 15, 2007, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office attached the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s financial institution, such as the Plaintiff’s deposit claim in the Tae River Branch and Free Savings Deposit in the National Agricultural Cooperatives Federation, based on the Plaintiff’s default of comprehensive income tax attributed to year 2001, and collected KRW 235,097,350 from the above bond.

2) In addition, on September 6, 2007, the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office attached the Plaintiff’s share (27,300 shares) out of the total shares (70,00 shares) of EE Construction as the seized bond.

3) On April 14, 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to pay the resident tax for the year 2011, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City seized the Plaintiff’s deposit claim on the Ulsan Metropolitan City Points of the New Bank as the seizure claim.

C. Termination of the instant taxation disposition revocation lawsuit

1) On March 20, 2008, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant taxation disposition against the head of Ulsan District Tax Office and the head of Ulsan District Tax Office, the Ulsan District Court 2008Guhap642, and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on November 19, 2008.

2) Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed from Busan High Court Decision 2008Nu6455 on June 9, 2010, and the above court: "the plaintiff, from March 1993 to March 9, 1996, entered the land of this case acquired in the course of performing a land readjustment project in the name of Southern Development and the name of BB Construction; at the time of registering the land of this case in the name of BB, BB did not deliver 000 won of the acquisition price of the land of this case to the plaintiff, who is its representative director, as its representative director, with the funds of BB, not with the account book prepared that the representative director paid 00 won of the purchase price of the land of this case for DD comprehensive construction, and even if the plaintiff received 00 won of the purchase price of the land of this case as the representative director, the representative director, or the representative director of the BB corporation without any consideration, it is difficult to view the plaintiff to arbitrarily cancel the judgment of BB or sell the land of this case for the reason that the plaintiff sold the land of this case.

3) On October 28, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2012Du13081 Decided October 28, 201, the appeal filed by the head of Ulsan District Tax Office and the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, which was dismissed, became final and conclusive in the above appellate judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 5, Eul evidence No. 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although preservative measures such as provisional seizure or provisional disposition are executed by the court's judgment, the existence of substantive claims shall be entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and shall be borne by the creditor by the vindication, so if the execution creditor loses the lawsuit on the merits after such execution, then the execution creditor shall be subject to the execution creditor unless there is any special counter-proof against the damage suffered by the debtor due to execution on the merits

Therefore, it is presumed that there was an intentional or negligent act, and therefore, there is a liability to compensate for damages arising from the improper execution (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34764 Decided 23, 2012). This is the same as in the case of this case. Therefore, public officials belonging to the Defendants (public officials belonging to the Republic of Korea, public officials belonging to the head of Ulsan District Tax Office and the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City) committed a tort of which the instant tax disposition and seizure were conducted. Since the judgment against public officials belonging to the Defendants became final and conclusive in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant tax disposition, it is presumed that the public officials belonging to the Defendants were intentional or negligent with respect to the tort, and the compensation is the amount equivalent to interest in arrears at a rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act with respect to the amount of the instant tax disposition. Thus,

B. Determination

Even if any administrative disposition is revoked after it is illegal in an appeal litigation, it shall not be concluded that the administrative disposition concerned constitutes a tort by intention or negligence of a public official, and it shall not be deemed that the public official in charge of the administrative disposition has lost objective legitimacy by neglecting objective duty of care when the public official in charge of the administrative disposition is generally a public official.

In the case of a degree, it shall be deemed that the State's liability under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act has been met. In this case, whether the objective legitimacy has been lost or not is an administrative disposition which

Determination shall be made by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the form and purpose thereof, whether the victim is involved in the case, degree of involvement, type of benefit infringed, degree of damage, etc., and by examining whether there is a substantial reason to impose on the State or local governments the responsibility to compensate for the damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da30703, Jan. 27, 201).

In light of the following circumstances which can be found by the above facts, i.e., ① the owner of the land in this case was the name of BB enterprise, but the price of the land in this case was paid to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff used it, which led to the appearance of the Defendants’ public officials, and the appearance was formed by the Plaintiff. ② The reason why the instant taxation disposition was unlawful is that the Plaintiff was formed by title trust with BB enterprise, and the actual owner of the land in this case was the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received the purchase price of the land in this case, and it was unlawful to deem that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff as the owner of the land in this case, and that the Defendants’ public officials belonging to the Defendants, who were not known of the title trust relation, did not appear to have any objective reason to believe that the Plaintiff received the purchase price of the land in this case was subject to taxation. ③ The Defendants’ public officials belonging to the Tax Tribunal and the first instance court did not seem to have been able to find the illegality of the instant taxation disposition by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s new EFFF, and the Plaintiff’s new EF Financial Cooperative.

As seen earlier, even if there was an error in the taxation disposition of this case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s loss incurred to the extent that the Defendant lost its legitimacy to the extent that the Defendant should compensate for the loss incurred to the Plaintiff, or that the public official general in the performance of his duties was negligent in performing his duties, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da34764 Decided August 23, 2012 cited by the Plaintiff, and the seizure of the taxation of this case is in accordance with the law, such as Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, and cannot be invoked in the instant case).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.