Confirmation of Absence of Obligations

A seizure which is delinquent in national taxes has the effect of interrupting prescription.

1. It is confirmed that there does not exist any obligations listed in attached Form 3 against the Plaintiff’s Defendant Young-si.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and the remainder of the defendant's acceptance time are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant-si shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant-si, respectively.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation listed in attached Forms 1 and 2 and 3 against the plaintiff's Republic of Korea and the obligation listed in attached Forms 2 and 3 against the defendant-si.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On July 8, 1992, the Plaintiff obtained a permit for diversion of a preserved forest for the creation of a site for storage of agricultural products on three lots, including ○○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○, and 3 lots, and obtained a permit for diversion of a reserved forest for the creation of a site for storage of agricultural products on three lots. On September 27, 1993, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization for completion of a conservation forest diversion project on 8,353 square meters of the above land

(2) On December 29, 1993, the Defendant-si notified the Plaintiff of the payment deadline of KRW 38,421,630, which is part of the development charges incurred by the instant construction work (hereinafter “the first development charges”), on June 28, 1994. Since the amount of the development charges is determined as KRW 137,95,040, the Defendant-si notified the Plaintiff of the payment deadline for the remaining development charges of KRW 99,53,410 (hereinafter “the second development charges”) on April 15, 1998.

(3) On November 1, 1998, Defendant Republic of Korea issued a payment notice to the Plaintiff on November 30, 1998 on capital gains tax of KRW 1,075,052,293 (hereinafter “instant capital gains tax”).

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, Eul 1-1, Eul 2, Eul 2, 7, 8, each entry

B. Determination

위 인정사실에 의핳면, 이 사건 양도소득세 채권과 제1, 2차 개발부담금 채권은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 각 납부기한으로부터 국세기본법 제27조와 개발이익환수에관한법률 제15조의 3 제1항에서 각 정한 소멸시효기간인 5년을 경과하였다 할 것이다.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense of interruption of prescription

A. Whether extinctive prescription of transfer income tax claim of this case is interrupted

Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant transfer income tax claim was interrupted since the said Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s claim to preserve the instant transfer income tax claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription of the instant transfer income tax claim was completed on January 12, 2004, which was five years from the date of seizure, counting from the date of seizure.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in the statement in the Ga 1, Ga 1, and Ga 1, the above defendant may seize the plaintiff's claim on January 12, 199 for the preservation of the transfer income tax claim of this case and then recognize the fact that the notice of attachment was served on the plaintiff around that time, and the interruption of prescription due to attachment shall continue to be effective unless the seizure is withdrawn or released. Since there is no evidence to prove that the above seizure was withdrawn or cancelled, the extinctive prescription of the transfer income tax claim of this case was suspended by the above seizure of the claim, and the above defendant's defense is with merit.

B. Whether extinctive prescription of the first development charges is interrupted

The time limit for the first time is set up that the extinctive prescription of the claim of the development charges has been interrupted more than once by the payment demand.

Article 15-3 (2) and (3) of the Restitution of Development Gains Act provides that the extinctive prescription of a development charge shall be interrupted by a demand for payment of the credit, and the interrupted extinctive prescription shall be new from the time when the demand period for payment expires. According to each of the statements in B-B, 14, 16, and 17, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant Gi-si established the payment deadline on August 28, 1998 with respect to the first development charge by the Plaintiff on September 28, 1998; the payment deadline on April 23, 2001; the payment deadline on May 27, 2001; and the payment demand again on May 19, 206; and the demand notice shall be served on the Plaintiff on May 24, 2006.

Therefore, the first development charges and additional charges are suspended by the demand for payment from August 28, 1998, which was before five years elapse from June 28, 1994, and the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted by the demand for payment from August 28, 1998 (the due date for payment September 28, 1998). The extinctive prescription was interrupted by the demand for payment from April 23, 2001 (the due date for payment May 27, 2001), which was before five years elapse from the expiration of the due date for payment. In addition, the demand for payment from May 19, 2006, which was served on the Plaintiff on May 24, 2006, which was later interrupted by the demand for payment from May 24, 2006. Therefore, the above defense from the Defendant

C. Whether extinctive prescription of the second development charges is interrupted

The author argues that the period of extinctive prescription of the second development charges has been interrupted more than once.

According to each of the statements in Eul, Eul, Eul, 8, 14, 16, and 17, the defendant Jong-si urged the plaintiff to pay the payment of the payment deadline on April 23, 2001, which was five years after the deadline for payment of the second development charge, from May 14, 1998, which was five years after May 14, 2001. However, at the time of defendant Jong-si, the next payment demand can be recognized to have been served on the plaintiff on May 24, 2006 after the lapse of five years from the above payment deadline, and there is no other evidence to prove that the extinctive prescription of the second development charge was suspended, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, it is clear that the second development charges against the plaintiff's defendant-si were extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and as long as the defendant-si contests the above interruption of the extinctive prescription, there is a benefit to seek confirmation. Thus, the second development charges against the defendant-si shall be accepted for the reason that the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of the non-existence of the second development charges against the defendant-si is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim against

[Attachment]

List of Bonds

1. Capital gains tax claim of Defendant Republic of Korea;

(a) Tax item code: 9811-622;

(b) Management number: 0035;

(c) Amount of tax: 1,902,842,110 won (= internal tax of KRW 1,075,052,30 + additional dues of KRW 827,789,810).

(d) Payment period: November 30, 1998;

2. Claim for the first development charges at the time of defendant tolerance;

Development charges imposed on the diversion of 8,353 square meters of three parcels, including ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, which is a preserved forest, for the use of 9,158 square meters of agricultural products as the site for storage of agricultural products, and the development charges imposed on December 29, 193; 38,421,630 won and its additional charges imposed on December 29, 193.

3. Claim for the second development charges at the time of defendant acceptance.

The development charges imposed on the diversion of the reserved forest referred to in paragraph (2) shall be determined at KRW 137,95,040,000. The development charges imposed additionally 9,533,410, and additional charges;

4. The plaintiff's claims seized by the defendant Republic of Korea;

A. The plaintiff's claim for provisional seizure against the plaintiff's knives corporation

(b) Indication of provisional seizure against immovables; and

(1) Case number: the provisional seizure of real estate by Suwon District Court 98Kadan10369

(b) Claim: 163,390,140 won for indemnity;

(3)Real estate subject to provisional seizure

○○시 ○○동 ●●● 잡종지 7,058㎡와 같은 동 ▲▲▲ 잡종지 9,560㎡. 끝.