disposition of seizure pursuant to the default of capital gains tax shall not be deemed null and void;

While the instant disposition and subsequent attachment disposition are recognized, a notice of tax payment is served.

The plaintiff's assertion that the prior disposition of this case and the seizure disposition of this case are invalid is not acceptable, even though there is no special circumstance that the notification of the seizure disposition will not be served.

2014Guhap67703 Nullification of attachment disposition

KimA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Intervenor joining the Defendant

December 11, 2014

February 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 1, 1993, the head of the agency confirms that each seizure disposition against the real estate listed in the attached Form is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The head of Seoul 00 Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Seoul 00 Tax Office") imposed a transfer income tax of 000 won on the Plaintiff on November 30, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition"). The Plaintiff did not pay the said transfer income tax. As the Plaintiff did not pay the said transfer income tax, the head of the Seoul 00 Tax Office entrusted the attachment of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "instant real estate") on October 29, 1993 with the delinquent tax amount of the instant disposition as the preserved bond. The Seoul 00 Director entrusted the attachment registration with the head of the Seoul 00 Director of the Tax Office on November 1, 1993, registered the attachment of the instant real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "instant attachment disposition") on November 1, 1993. The Seoul 00 Head of the Seoul 200 Head of the tax Office succeeded to the Defendant's authority by the head of the Seoul District Tax Office.

D. On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant to the effect that the instant disposition was null and void, and that there was no fact that the attachment notice was received, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a complaint to the effect that the instant disposition was revoked, but the Defendant deemed that there was no ground for rejection on August 20, 2014.

E. The tax amount in arrears in the instant disposition reaches KRW 000 as of August 5, 2914.

F. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant attachment disposition is null and void and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not transfer property, including real estate, at the time of the instant disposition, and did not receive a written notice of transfer income tax, and thus, the instant disposition of taxation is null and void. As such, the instant disposition of taxation, which is a prior disposition of the instant attachment, is u300 as well as u300 per annum, and the Plaintiff did not receive the notice of the instant attachment disposition, the instant attachment disposition is also null and void.

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

A disposition on default, such as tax imposition and seizure, are separate and independent administrative disposition, and thus, it cannot be deemed that a disposition on default is unlawful unless the disposition on default is revoked. However, where a disposition on default is merely a procedure for the execution of a disposition on default, and the disposition on default becomes null and void due to a grave and apparent defect in the disposition on default, the disposition on default for the execution of the disposition on default is also null and void (Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1009 Decided June 28, 198). Meanwhile, in an administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition on the ground that the administrative disposition on the ground that it is null and void, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the grounds that the administrative disposition on the ground that it is null and void (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460 Decided May 13, 2010). In light of the above legal principle, the Plaintiff’s prior disposition on the imposition of this case and subsequent disposition on the imposition of this case cannot be accepted, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition on default and subsequent disposition were not recorded in the notice.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.