In a case where the chief of a tax office requests a delivery under the National Tax Collection Act, whether notifying a delinquent taxpayer of a request for delivery constitutes a requirement for interruption of extinctive prescription regarding the right to collect national taxes

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the right to collect the national tax shall be interrupted by a request for delivery. Since the head of a tax office, etc. who made a request for delivery under the National Tax Collection Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes does not require notification to the delinquent taxpayer of the fact that the request for delivery was made, the interruption of

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Plaintiff

Korea

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2009Na533 Decided August 18, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the right to collect the national tax shall be interrupted by a request for delivery. Since the head of a tax office, etc. who made a request for delivery under the National Tax Collection Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes does not require notification to the delinquent taxpayer of the fact that the request for delivery was made, it shall not affect the validity

In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on June 13, 2007 for delivery of each of the tax claims of this case (hereinafter "first tax claim of this case" and "second tax claim of this case") of this case which was filed by the defendant 2 to the non-party 1 corporation of the Han River Construction Industry (hereinafter "non-party 2 corporation") as executive title. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on June 13, 2007 under the premise that the extinctive prescription period of this case was terminated by the non-party 1 to the non-party 384,965,219 won and the non-party 2 corporation of this case's claim on March 31, 1996. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on June 9, 2000 to the non-party 1 corporation of this case which had been delivered 90,000 won and the extinctive prescription period of this case was terminated by 90,000 won.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)