(1) No disposition of deficits shall be prescribed by the extinguishment of

The disposition of deficits is not a disposition to permanently extinguish the tax obligation, but only the meaning of the completion of the disposition procedure for arrears, and therefore, the tax obligation shall be extinguished ultimately only when the extinctive prescription of the disposition for arrears is completed.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

On May 26, 2009, the Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting the release of attachment against the Plaintiff.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On May 15, 1996, the Defendant imposed capital gains tax of KRW 140,448,500 and KRW 28,089,69,690 on the Plaintiff as the payment deadline. On December 30, 1996, the Defendant seized (hereinafter “instant seizure”) the Plaintiff’s respective shares (1/6) on the Plaintiff’s 41-1 road of KRW 1,577,00 (the same 283-6 square meters as of December 3, 2008, divided into 283-7 road of KRW 1,128 square meters as of December 3, 2008).

B. On August 7, 1997 after the seizure of this case, the Plaintiff’s share in 41 m3,092 m3,092 m3,000 m3,000, was sold by public auction, and the ownership was transferred to Nonparty A on February 2, 1998 (the seizure of this case on the above 283-6, 7 m3,000 m3).

C. On September 30, 1997, the Defendant collected additional dues of KRW 2,184,00 from the Plaintiff, and KRW 38,710,00 on October 23, 1997, respectively. On December 18, 2003, the Defendant issued a written disposition on deficits of KRW 235,875,320 on December 18, 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition on deficits”). Thereafter, on December 30, 2003, the Defendant issued a full number of KRW 24,935,60 from the Plaintiff.

D. On May 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for the release of the seizure of this case on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s right to collect national taxes in arrears has expired by prescription. However, on May 26, 2009, the Defendant rejected the instant disposition on the ground that the extinctive prescription was suspended due to the seizure of this case.

E. On July 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for the cancellation of the disposition of this case, but was dismissed on October 27 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the Disposition on Deficits, the interruption effect of the Plaintiff’s right to collect national taxes in arrears due to the instant attachment was lost. Therefore, since the statute of limitations has run again from the date of Disposition on Deficits of this case, and the Plaintiff’s protocoll debt has expired due to the expiration of the five-year prescription period on December 17, 2008, the instant attachment should

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

However, Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes prior to the amendment by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996 provides that the time when the disposal of deficit was made shall be the cause for extinguishment of liability for tax payment, but the disposal of deficit was excluded from the cause for extinguishment of liability for tax payment due to the amendment. Furthermore, Article 86(2) of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 9265 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that the disposal of deficit shall be revoked without delay and the disposal of other seizable properties should be completed. In light of this, the disposal of deficit is not a disposal of final extinguishment of liability for tax payment, but a disposal of deficit is not a disposal of final extinguishment of liability for tax payment, and it has only the meaning of termination of the procedure for the disposition of arrears (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10066, Sept. 24, 2002).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, it shall be dismissed.