The defect in the disposition of this case is significant and apparent so it is not deemed to be void as a matter of course.

Although it is not subject to taxation, it is difficult to see that there was a defect in the disposition of this case by misunderstanding the fact, and even if there is such a defect, it cannot be deemed as an apparent defect in appearance, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an void

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016 Ghana 4279 Demurrer

Since the apartment house is only apartment house, Kim Dong-ri is a single house for one household, even if the apartment house is sold.

Transfer income tax shall be exempted.

② Acquisition of KRW 201,592,000, not the market price at the time of purchase of the instant apartment by the △△△ Kim in Korea

In other words, capital gains tax has been calculated at the price.

(3) The head of △△ Tax Office shall transfer income tax to Kim △△ without meeting the requirements of service

Since a tax notice is served by public notice and a seizure disposition, the above taxation disposition is null and void as a matter of course.

2) In addition, even if the Plaintiff recognized the transfer income tax on the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff actually did so.

The capital gains tax to be imposed is merely KRW 15,428,762 on the basis of actual transaction prices, and is merely merely KRW 15,428,

The amount of dividends to Defendant Republic of Korea based on the instant taxation is unfair and based on such amount.

The defendant asserts to the effect that the amount of dividends against the defendant's Republic of Korea should be changed.

B. Determination

1) Whether the instant taxation disposition is invalid

The disposition of this case by only the evidence presented by the plaintiff as follows.

It is insufficient to deem that the defect is a grave and apparent invalidation, and otherwise, evidence to prove it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) Where a person who transfers a house owns another building, such another building under the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.

Whether it is a house under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined by the classification of use of building injury or structural change of the authority.

Whether a building is actually used for residence or not should be determined by whether the building is actually used for residence (Supreme Court)

See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7023 delivered on July 24, 1992, see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7023 delivered on July 24, 199

In addition to the apartment of this case, the △-dong building owned by the △△ Kim

Two-story buildings (1 floor 81.84 square meters, 76.32 square meters) registered, and the area of housing on the building ledger shall be two stories.

76.32 square meters, and the head of △△△ Tax Office shall pass a resolution of the Advisory Committee on Assessment of Taxation.

The Enforcement Decree of the Act, which actually uses the second floor of the building in △△-dong, as a house and uses it as a house.

Article 7-2 (1) of the Act shall be an employee, employee, or cohabitant at the place of service.

If there is no person, the document served by registered mail, but the addressee is absent;

If it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date due to the return;

The service of documents by public notice is regarded as service of documents.

The defendant from February 2011 to February 201, according to the grounds for the above recognition and the purport of the whole argument.

At the time, the registration of the Kim-dong Kim-dong, the domicile of the Kim-dong Kim-dong at the time, in △-dong, △-dong.

The tax notice of the instant disposition was sent three times by registered mail, but all of them was returned, and March 2011.

18. The third registered mail sent is returned on May 2, 201, when the third registered mail is returned.

For this reason, it is recognized that the notice of disposition of this case was served by public notice.

Service of a tax notice by public notice shall be in accordance with relevant statutes, such as Framework Act on National Taxes.

D. Other notice of tax payment, even after examining the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, appears to have been served lawfully.

There is no circumstance that the service of a document is invalid due to its illegality.

2) Determination as to the assertion that the tax amount based on the instant taxation disposition should be modified

In addition, there is no reason to revoke the taxation unless the taxation is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course.

such taxation disposition is legitimate by the fairness or executory power of the administrative action.

Since it is valid until it is revoked, the validity of the above taxation disposition in civil procedure is denied.

The Supreme Court Decision 87Meu54 Decided July 7, 1987, and the Decision on October 22, 1991

91Da26690 decided Feb. 1, 200

Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the actual purchase price is applied in the calculation process of the instant tax disposition.

Even if some defects, such as non-existence, exist, such taxation disposition as determined earlier.

Since the above disposition cannot be deemed null and void unless the defect is serious and clear, the above disposition is deemed null and void.

A civil litigation procedure, unless the effect is lost due to a lawful revocation in an administrative litigation;

In a lawsuit, the validity of the disposition is denied and there is no claim of the defendant Republic of Korea.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion need to be examined further.

without reason.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Cheong-gu is unlawful and dismissed, and the defendant in the Republic of Korea

The claim against the defendant is dismissed for lack of reason.

Note ○

Republic of Korea 1

2,564,762 out of the total amount of dividends to the Republic of Korea and the amount of dividends to △△;

The objection was raised to the Supreme Court.

H. The Plaintiff’s detailed transfer and disposition against the head of △△ Tax Office on February 1, 2011 by the head of △△ Tax Office.

Although an action to confirm the invalidity of the case was filed on May 16, 2017, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court 2016 Gu Joint ○○○○○.

The plaintiff's lawsuit was dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed with the 2017Nu○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the appeal was dismissed on January 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 4 through 6, 9, 10, 20, 21, 23 evidence, Eul's 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant △△

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1.3,00,000 won, monthly rent, and KRW 3,000,000,000,000 for the store of this case

As of June 18, 2012, 200,000 won out of rent, from July 18, 2012 to September 23, 2013, respectively.

In addition, the Plaintiff did not pay a total of KRW 3,300,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiff of the Defendant Cho Young-gu.

Claim shall be KRW 1.7 million remaining after deducting KRW 3.3 million in arrears from the deposit amount of KRW 5 million;

The plaintiff recognizes 1.5 million won as consolation money from the above amount of the claim, and against the defendant Cho Young-chul

The amount of dividends is 3.2 million won (=5 million won - 3.3 million won + 1.5 million won), the remaining amount:

be corrected to pay dividends to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Enforcement with executory power where a debtor raises an objection against a distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure;

The debtor who has raised an objection against the creditor without an authentic copy of title shall file a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution.

and the debtor who has an objection against the creditor who has an executory exemplification of executive title.

Since an action of demurrer against a claim is filed (Article 154(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Court Act), there is executory power.

A lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution against a creditor who has an authentic copy of executive titles, not a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim.

Filing of a lawsuit is unlawful (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da72464 Decided April 14, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da72464 Decided April 14, 2016

5. 12.see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da2970, supra)

2) In light of the relevant legal principles, the Defendant as seen in the health class and the basic facts as to the instant case.

△△△ Building based on the judgment on the refund of the rental deposit in this case against the plaintiff

The plaintiff, the debtor, has applied for a compulsory auction and participated in the distribution procedure.

The objection to the distribution of this case filed against Defendant △△ who has an executory exemplification of executive titles

The lawsuit should be deemed unlawful.

3. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff imposed the Defendant’s taxation of capital gains tax on Kim-ri and △ (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

Since the disposition is null and void due to a serious and clear defect for the following reasons, the disposition in this case is null and void:

It is unfair to distribute dividends of 15,426,170 won to Defendant Republic of Korea in dividend procedures, and a claim

The purport is that the correction should be made as stated in the purport.

(1) The building owned by the △△-dong at the time of selling the apartment of this case is a commercial building.

2017.09.26

3, 201.23

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant Cho Young-chul shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

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

Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on May 30, 2016 with respect to the real estate auction case of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the Gu office ○○ District Court 2015, the amount of dividends of KRW 5,764,762 to Defendant Cho Young-gu 3,200,000, the amount of dividends of KRW 77,61,989 to the Plaintiff, KRW 80,226,751 to the Plaintiff, the amount of dividends of KRW 15,426,170 to the Defendant Republic of Korea through administrative litigation, and the amount of dividends of KRW 15,426,170 to the Defendant Republic of Korea

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2003, Nonparty 1, who is the Plaintiff’s mother, acquired ○○○○○○-dong 101 △△ apartment-dong (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and transferred it on June 17, 2008. (B) The Defendant, other than the above apartment, jointly owned the Plaintiff and △△△△-dong △△△△△△△△△ △△ △ △△ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ △ 17.4 square meters, and the second-class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “△ △△ △ △”) with the 1/2 shares, but did not separately report the transfer income tax on the disposal of the instant apartment as it falls under the second-class neighborhood living facilities and was returned to 1/200 on February 1, 201 to 1/379, 2018.

D. Since then, the △△△△ in arrears of the capital gains tax, the head of △△△ in arrears attached the ownership share of the △△△△ in the building of △△△ in September 15, 201. After that, on April 27, 2012, the △△△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City donated the Plaintiff’s share in the ownership of the building of △△△△ in question, and the Plaintiff acquired the entire ownership, and the △△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City died on November

E. On the other hand, on June 25, 2012, Kim Dong-dong and the Plaintiff: (a) leased the first floor store of the △△dong building (hereinafter “instant store”); (b) concluded a lease agreement with Defendant Cho Young-dong on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,00,000, and KRW 300,000,000; and (c) Defendant Cho Young-dong occupied the instant store after delivery from around that time.

F. On May 28, 2015, Defendant △△ rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 and the damages for delay for the lease deposit,” which became final and conclusive as is, by filing a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the refund of lease deposit with the △△ District Court 2014 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, in which the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the refund of lease deposit against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment for the refund of the lease deposit”).

G. According to the above final judgment, Defendant 1 filed an application for a compulsory auction with the △△-dong District Court of △△-dong with the Do governor of △△-dong and the Do governor of △-dong in around 2015 to ○○○○○, and the compulsory auction procedure was in progress. On May 30, 2016, the above court distributed the amount of KRW 5,764,762 to Defendant △△-dong and the amount of KRW 15,426,170 to Defendant 15,426,170 to Defendant △△-dong and distributed the remaining surplus amount of KRW 7,61,89 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dividend