Plaintiff (Attorney Han Han-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

December 4, 2008

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Gudan14247 decided April 25, 2008

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On March 16, 1991, the Defendant confirmed that imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 548,931,790 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff owned 30 lots of land, including Jeju-si (hereinafter omitted), 483.3 square meters, and transferred the said 30 lots of land from 1987 to 1990.

B. On March 16, 1991, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 548,931,790 on the Plaintiff regarding the transfer of the above 30 parcel of land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is invalidated;

The Plaintiff asserts that he was unable to receive a tax notice regarding the instant disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 7 and Gap evidence 13-1 and 2, the defendant seized the plaintiff's monthly salary on January 10, 1995 and February 3, 2004 on the ground that the plaintiff did not pay the capital gains tax. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of this case on October 31, 2007, even if he knew of such seizure around that time, and the documents related to the delivery of the disposition of this case can be recognized as having been entirely destroyed after the expiration of the preservation period. However, if the plaintiff knew of the seizure of property, the defect of the delivery of the tax payment notice is not cured (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu319, May 11, 1982), and the documents related to the disposition of this case were destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period, and it cannot be recognized that the documents related to the disposition of this case were not delivered to the plaintiff until the expiration of the preservation period or if the documents related to the disposition of this case were not collected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's claim accepted.

Judges Lee Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)