Appropriateness of the assertion that a notice of attachment by electronic re-determination is invalid due to lack of official seal

Since the defendant can recognize the fact that the plaintiff, who is a delinquent taxpayer, was notified of the attachment through the internal electronic resolution process, the procedure is lawful. In preparing the notice of attachment of the property, the defendant must obtain approval in writing rather than the electronic resolution method, or it is not necessary to affix the official seal of the defendant, who is the disposal authority, on the notice of attachment of the property. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected

Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of Right to Collect National Taxes)

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. On February 20, 2006, the attachment disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff ○○○-dong 21-2, ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong 21-2, A Dong 611 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the Plaintiff’s assertion and its judgment, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as is in accordance with Article 8(2)

The plaintiff asserts that the notice of the attachment of property served by the defendant on the plaintiff while taking the disposition of this case is a document printed out by the public official in charge of electronic resolution, and that it cannot be deemed a lawful document because the defendant's official seal, etc. is not affixed. Thus, the above written notice of attachment of property is invalid. However, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in Eul evidence 1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant notified the plaintiff as the delinquent taxpayer through the internal electronic resolution process. Thus, the procedure is lawful. In preparing the notice of attachment of property, the defendant must obtain the written approval, rather than the electronic resolution method, or the defendant's official seal, who is the disposal authority, should not be affixed to the notice of attachment of property. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, 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.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36391, 2007.06]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On February 20, 2006, the attachment disposition issued by the Defendant on February 20, 2006 against ○○○○○○-dong 21-2 ○○ apartment A, owned by the Plaintiff, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff did not pay global income tax of KRW 17,679,760 imposed as the payment period on April 30, 1999 (hereinafter “instant global income tax”).

B. On May 25, 199, the defendant seized ○○○○○-dong 21-2 Dong 805, 21-2, 205, which is owned by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was released from attachment on January 10, 2006, that the plaintiff would completely pay the delinquent amount until February 10, 2006.

C. However, as the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears until February 10, 2006, the Defendant again issued the instant disposition on February 20, 2006, which attached ○○○○○-dong 21-2 ○○ apartment-dong 611, ○○-dong 21-2, 2006, which is owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 16 and Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including above number)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since 199 and 5 years have passed since the date when the Defendant was able to exercise the right to collect the global income tax of this case, the instant disposition was unlawful since it had already been completed by extinctive prescription of the right to collect national tax.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of National Tax Collection Right)

(1) Any right of the State to collect national taxes shall be extinguished by prescription, if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is exercisable.

Article 28 (Interruption and Suspension of Prescription)

(1) The extinctive prescription under Article 27 shall be interrupted by any of the following reasons:

1. A tax payment notice;

2. Urging or demand for payment;

3. Request for delivery;

4. Seizure.

(2) The extinctive prescription interrupted under paragraph (1) shall resume when the period under each of the following subparagraphs expires:

1. Period of payment notified;

2. Period fixed by urging or demand notice of payment;

3. Period specified in the request for delivery;

4. Period until seizure is cancelled.

C. Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s attachment of ○ apartment owned by the Plaintiff on May 25, 199 on the global income tax of this case, the payment period of which was April 30, 1999, and released the attachment on January 10, 2006. As such, the extinctive prescription of the instant global income tax collection right is interrupted at the time of the attachment of an apartment, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription of the instant global income tax was resumed from January 10, 2006, when the attachment was rescinded (the Framework Act on National Taxes, unlike the Civil Act, has been separately stipulated as stated in the above provisions as to the termination period of the prescription of the attachment). Therefore, it is apparent that the Defendant’s instant disposition was conducted before the completion of the extinctive prescription of the collection right

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du26278, Oct. 14, 2008]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds provided for in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent