Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap10713 ( October 12, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do0606 ( October 28, 2011)

In order to claim the invalidity of an administrative disposition as a matter of course, the burden of proof exists on a person who asserts the invalidity of an administrative disposition.

If one or more of the items of taxation claiming invalidation is legitimate, the value of the property subject to the attachment disposition shall not be deemed void as it significantly exceeds the amount of the tax imposed.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2011Nu3078 Invalidity of attachment disposition

XX

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap10713 decided August 12, 2011

January 19, 2012

February 14, 2012

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. The defendant's provisional attachment against the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the real estate listed in the separate sheet dated December 14, 2005, the seizure of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on November 16, 2007, the seizure of claim against shares of XX 14,500, and the seizure of claim against shares of X 14,500, October 5, 2009, and the seizure of claim against shares of OO industry development Co., Ltd. 6, 000, and ○○ Do Co., Ltd. 21,000.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case seems to be without undergoing any objection procedure against the disposition imposing value-added tax of this case from the 10th judgment No. 5th to the 17th judgment, and it seems that the plaintiff does not submit any materials that can prove the above disposition as unlawful. However, it appears that the plaintiff did not go through any objection procedure against the disposition imposing value-added tax of this case from the 10th judgment. However, the fact inquiry result of the court's fact inquiry on the Minister of Justice in the appellate court is insufficient to recognize the above disposition as unlawful. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and 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.