1. The case where the defendant's office is not a party to the lawsuit

The director of South Korea Tax Office

October 6, 1981

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As of May 11, 1979, the Defendant’s attachment of 44 to 58 to 44 to 9 to 166-dong, Dobong-gu, Seoul, and 1 Dong (No. 1269 to 1269 to 1269 to 129 to 29 to 198 to 166 to 166 to 166 to 29 to 29 to 29 to 29 to 198 to 19

The fact that the defendant issued a seizure disposition, such as the purport of the claim, does not conflict between the parties.

On May 11, 1979, the Plaintiff received a notice of payment of KRW 13,930,087, including corporate tax, issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on May 1, 197. The Defendant asserted that the disposition of this case was null and void due to defective administrative acts, and thus, the Defendant did not demand or demand the payment of the tax amount to the Plaintiff before the seizure of this case. The Defendant did not dispute the above 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 44, No. 7, No. 9, No. 1, No. 96, No. 1, No. 4, and No. 1, No. 97, No. 1, No. 97, No. 2, No. 9, and No. 1, No. 97, No. 2, No. 97, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 97, No. 97, No. 1, No.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation on the ground that the disposition of this case is null and void is dismissed as there is no ground, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation

October 20, 1981

Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Justice)