Whether the plaintiff's damage occurred due to the defendant's collection act, and whether the defendant is liable for compensation

The defendant collected the claim of this case after seizure due to the plaintiff's default, and it is difficult to recognize the illegality of the collection procedure.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2016Na60843 Compensation for damages

New*

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2015 Ghana120811 Decided June 9, 2016

December 6, 2016

January 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,58,760 won with 1% per annum from December 16, 2011 to August 9, 2013, 5% per annum from August 10, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 15% per annum from August 10, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The court's explanation about the instant case is the same as the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Ro, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.