Daejeon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-108 ( November 27, 2014)

It cannot be deemed that a long-term unpublic auction situation after seizure was an expression of public opinion, such as the waiver or extinguishment of tax claims by the tax authorities.

(1) As indicated in the first instance judgment, a disposition rejecting an application for cancellation of attachment is justifiable, on the grounds that the tax authority did not request the taxpayer to deliver the real estate in the auction case of other properties of the delinquent taxpayer under the condition of a long-term public auction, etc.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, requirements for cancellation of seizure under Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act.

2014Nu12718 Revocation of revocation of an application to cancel the attachment.

】 】

The director of the tax office

March 26, 2015

April 23, 2015

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's rejection disposition against the cancellation of attachment against the plaintiff on December 30, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that " January 16, 2014 or January 31, 2014" in Part 7, No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as " January 16, 1997 or January 31, 1997", and " January 16, 2014" in Part 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as " January 16, 1997" and " January 16, 1997" shall be read as " January 16, 1997," and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgment to the corresponding part, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“Plaintiffs,” and “Defendants, on October 10, 1997, sell the land of this case to the Korea Asset Management Corporation.”

Since the termination of the public auction by proxy as of June 12, 1998 constitutes "the suspension of the public auction, which is the grounds for the cancellation of seizure under Article 53 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act", the defendant's refusal disposition of this case against the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of seizure is illegal."

However, "Suspension of public auction" under Article 53 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act is suspended when the delinquent taxpayer or the third party pays the delinquent amount in full. [The former part of Article 71 (1) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6805 of Dec. 26, 2002)] The submitted evidence alone is insufficient to view that the delinquent amount of the taxation of this case is completely paid before June 12, 1998 and the defendant's vicarious auction is terminated by the Korea Asset Management Corporation on June 12, 1998. Thus, it is difficult to view that there is "Suspension of public auction" under the grounds for cancellation of the seizure of this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.