1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The key issue of the instant case was, on December 3, 1997, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the capital gains tax by transferring 661/32,00 of 3,289 square meters among 3,289 square meters of Busan Shipping Daegu C site, and that “the Plaintiff did not pay one capital gains tax; the amount in arrears was KRW 67,051,00 as of May 22, 2014; and the amount in arrears is KRW 67,051,00 as of June 13, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would seize the Plaintiff’s deposit claim, benefit claim, etc. pursuant to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act if the Plaintiff did not pay the capital gains tax by June 13, 2014.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notification”). The key issue of the instant case is: ① the Defendant’s determination of the amount in arrears of KRW 67,051,00 against the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014; ② the notification of the amount in arrears against the Plaintiff on May 23, 2014; ③ whether the Defendant’s pre-announcement of seizure against the Plaintiff on May 23, 2014 can be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

B. First of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance determined that the Defendant’s determination of the amount in arrears of KRW 67,051,00 against the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014 was merely an internal act of the Defendant’s administrative agency and cannot be said to change the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be subject to appeal litigation.

Next, on May 23, 2014, the court of first instance determined that the defendant's notice of arrears against the plaintiff on May 23, 2014 was not the first demand under the National Tax Collection Act, and thus it cannot be deemed that it directly affects the plaintiff's rights and obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation

Finally, the court of first instance did not pay the tax in arrears within a certain period of time to the plaintiff on May 23, 2014 in advance notice of seizure given by the defendant against the plaintiff on May 23, 2014.