Where a postal item is sent by means of registration with his/her domicile, it shall be deemed to have been delivered at that time, except in extenuating circumstances.

If a notice of tax payment was sent to a person jointly and severally liable for tax payment on behalf of the person jointly and severally liable for tax payment, it shall be deemed that the notice was delivered at that time, and since the Plaintiff, claiming the invalidity of tax payment, fails to submit any evidence to prove that there was no necessary entry in the notice of tax payment, it does not constitute the invalidity of tax

Article 9 (Notification of Tax Payment)

Article 4 (Gift Tax Liability)

2015Guhap72351 The action demanding nullification of a seizure disposition

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

March 17, 2016

March 31, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The attached property of June 22, 2012, attached by the Defendant on April 12, 2012, attached by [Attachment 2] Nos. 2

1. The right of container membership listed in attached Form 1, April 12, 2012

2. Deposit claims listed in attached Form 2, June 22, 2012

3. Deposit claims listed in attached Form 3 on June 27, 2012

On June 27, 2012, each seizure disposition against deposit claims listed in attached Form 3 is invalid.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) on May 21, 2007, to Nonparty Gima, Gyeonggi-do ○○○○-gun, ○○○-si 142 forest land

Of 3,085 square meters, 1,946/3,085 shares, 118/192 shares among 874 square meters of the same Ri, and 722/6,631 shares among 879-2 square meters of the same Ri 6,631 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case"), among 3,085 square meters, are donated, and the real estate in this case shall be owned in the name of Gaaa for the 25th of the same month.

The transfer registration has been completed.

B. On July 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) imposed a gift tax of KRW 00,000,000 on Mala, a donee (the due date for payment: July 31, 201); (b) but Gla did not pay it; (c) pursuant to Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), the Plaintiff, a donor, was designated as a joint obligor; and (d) seized the Plaintiff’s property (hereinafter “instant attachment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the seizure disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, the defendant only paid the payment notice under Article 4 (6) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act to the plaintiff.

Since there was no tax notice under Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 11125, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "former National Tax Collection Act"), a joint and several obligation to pay gift tax has not yet been created due to the lack of legitimate taxation. Therefore, the instant attachment disposition is null and void due to its significant and apparent defect.

Second, if the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the gift tax, Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Therefore, the requirement of “where the donee is deemed incapable of paying gift tax and it is difficult to secure tax claims even if the disposition on default was made due to the default,” is satisfied. However, Gaaa has sufficient means to pay gift tax including the instant real estate at the time of default. As such, the attachment disposition of this case is null and void as the defect is significant and apparent.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 4 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether a duty payment notice is issued pursuant to Article 9 of the former National Tax Collection Act

Where mail is sent by means of registration, special circumstances, such as return, etc.

Unless there exists any other reason, the Defendant’s delivery should be deemed to have been made to the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51758, Dec. 27, 2007) and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant’s delivery of the Plaintiff’s resident registration to the Plaintiff on Nov. 8, 201 and the document No. 28,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the document of this case”) in Seoul, ○○-gu, Seoul, ○○○, ○○ apartment, ○ apartment), and thus, the document of this case is also deemed to have been delivered to the Plaintiff around that time.

On the other hand, if the document sent to the Plaintiff as a joint and several taxpayer for the payment notice does not contain a necessary entry under Article 9 of the former National Tax Collection Act, such notice is unlawful.

However, in the administrative litigation claiming the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the invalidity of such administrative disposition, the plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010). The fact that the necessary entry in the documents for the notice of tax payment is not stated (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11933, Jun. 9, 1992) is also necessary to prove that the plaintiff asserts that the necessary entry in the documents for the notice of tax payment is omitted (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2120, Jun. 14, 1988, etc. cited by the plaintiff). Thus, the plaintiff does not submit any evidence as to the omission of the necessary entry in the documents for this case delivered to the plaintiff under Article 9 of the former National Tax Collection Act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2120, Jun. 14, 198).

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

2) Whether the donee has financial capacity under Article 4(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Objects of taxation on any legal or factual relations which are not subject to taxation

In a case where there are objective circumstances to mislead the person to be subject to taxation, if it is apparent whether it is subject to taxation should be accurately examined, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the unlawful taxation disposition that misleads the person to be subject to taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002).

The purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Eul evidence 6 and 8

In full view of the foregoing, the ownership of the instant real estate was entirely transferred to ○○ Trust Co., Ltd. by October 8, 2008; thereafter, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. again on October 20, 201 with respect to the instant real estate; and eventually, it is recognized that the Defendant did not discover other property in Gaaa and made a disposition on the disposal of gift tax on March 30, 2012, and that the tax authority imposed a disposition on disposal of the gift tax on the Plaintiff on March 30, 2012. As such, the tax authority is deemed to have had objective circumstances to deem that the obligation to jointly and severally pay gift tax to the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff had been capable of paying gift tax on Gaa can only be found through a thorough investigation of the facts. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that the disposition on the instant real estate constitutes

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

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.