A notice of payment to a secondary tax obligor of a corporation has been served to his/her domicile and has been seized in accordance with legitimate procedures.

As long as the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of a corporation, it constitutes the secondary taxpayer, the notice of payment was sent to the plaintiff's domicile, and the notice of payment was served, and the real estate was seized through legitimate procedures, so the registration of seizure was lawful but completed in accordance with the procedure.

2012 Gohap12823 Implementation of procedures for cancellation of real estate attachment registration

XX

Korea

October 23, 2012

October 30, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the attachment registration completed on October 1, 2010 by the Seoul Central District Court Branch No. 45650, which was completed on October 1, 2010.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

"The plaintiff, by establishing the plaintiff's father and without imposing corporate tax or demanding payment for the corporate tax for the corporation XX (hereinafter referred to as " XX"), which is not related to the plaintiff's own, the plaintiff's individual owner of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul and 55-6 outside 1 parcel, and 604 (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate of this case"). The plaintiff asserts that the above seizure is unfair and invalid, and that it should be cancelled."2.

The facts that the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of XX from June 12, 2009 to June 12, 2012 do not conflict between the parties, and considering the overall purport of entry and pleadings in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3 (including each serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the defendant designated the plaintiff as the second obligor of the value-added tax claim of 000 won against XX on October 1, 2010, and served the notice of payment on October 26, 2010. The plaintiff's mother-child A received the above notice of payment on October 4, 2010 by the plaintiff's mother-child A and the defendant received on October 1, 2010 as to the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff, the seizure of the real estate of this case can be recognized as the seizure registration of the Seoul Central District Court No. 4560, Oct. 11, 2010.

According to the above facts, as long as the plaintiff was registered as the representative director of XX, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff falls under the secondary taxpayer of XX, and as above, the defendant sent a notice of payment to the plaintiff's domicile and served the above notice of payment, and the defendant seized the real estate of this case through lawful procedures, and there is no other evidence to prove that the registration of seizure of this case is null and void, as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the above assertion by the plaintiff is without merit

3. Sallon;

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