Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap29964 ( October 23, 2014)

Notice of failure to register the seizure of real estate and the reason for excess seizure are not a reason for invalidation as a matter of course.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the registration of the instant seizure, and even if the instant seizure constitutes excess seizure, such fact alone cannot be deemed as a disposition that is void as a matter of course.

Article 45 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Nu5450 Action for nullification of attachment disposition

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap29964 decided May 23, 2014

November 28, 2014

December 19, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. On October 23, 1998, the attachment disposition against the plaintiff on the real estate listed in the annexed Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case") made by the defendant against the plaintiff is invalid.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On Chapter 2, "(1)" shall be added to the first head of Chapter 18.

(2) On the third side, the following shall be added:

"(2) The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact of seizure after the registration of the instant seizure. The registration of the seizure of three real estate owned by the Plaintiff was made as a result of the disposition on default following the instant disposition, which is in violation of Article 33-2 of the former National Tax Collection Act prohibiting excessive seizure. In this respect, the instant disposition is null and void as the defect is significant and apparent."

3) On the 4th page 7th page "(2)", the 4th page 7th page "a decision as to the plaintiff's proposal shall be added and the 1st page shall be changed.

(4) On the 5th page, the following shall be added:

“3) Determination as to Plaintiff’s second proposal

Article 45(1) of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that "the head of a tax office shall request the competent registry office to register the seizure of a real estate," and Article 47(1) provides that "the seizure of a real estate shall take effect when the registration of the seizure is completed." Meanwhile, according to Articles 45(4) and 41(3), the head of a tax office shall notify the delinquent taxpayer of the seizure when the seizure of the real estate is completed. However, as long as the seizure of the real estate takes effect when the registration of the seizure of the real estate is completed, the seizure does not become null and void merely because the delinquent taxpayer has not been notified of the seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3282, Aug. 25, 195).

In addition, if a tax official seizes a taxpayer's property to collect national taxes, the value of the property exceeds the amount of national taxes to be collected, and the seizure cannot be deemed an invalid disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Nu479, Nov. 11, 1986).

Therefore, according to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the registration of the seizure of this case, and even if the seizure of this case constitutes excess seizure, such fact alone cannot be deemed as a disposition that is void as a matter of course.

2. Conclusion

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