early 2012.0274 (105.10)aa

The interruption of prescription of an attachment is not effective, as a matter of course, without the need to obtain a new registration of attachment even the tax in arrears accrued after the

The notification of tax payment due to uncertainty of address can be deemed to have been served by public notice. On the other hand, once the registration of seizure was made, the interruption of prescription becomes effective as a matter of course without a new registration of seizure as to the delinquent tax amount incurred after the registration of seizure against the same person. Thus, the defendant's tax claim under each taxation of this case at the time of the disposition of arrears

2012 Gohap 530 Revocation of Disposition on Default

H H H

Head of Three Tax Office

July 16, 2013

August 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition on default against the plaintiff as of September 21, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who has been engaged in new construction and sales business of commercial housing after completing business registration as “YY”.

B. The Defendant issued a tax notice to the Plaintiff as of the date indicated in the column of "written notice" as stated in the following table, including global income tax, additional tax and capital gains tax, and the date on which tax notice was sent to the Plaintiff as of the date indicated in the same table, and notified each of the above tax notice by service by public notice (hereinafter referred to as "tax assessment" in the sequence of the same table). The Defendant did not pay global income tax, etc. in accordance with each of the instant taxation dispositions.

Details of taxation disposition.

No.

Items of Taxation

Reversion Year

Amount of tax (source)

Date of delivery of notice

Service Date

1

1994

OOO

November 2, 199

December 2, 199

2

Global Income Tax

1997

OOO

December 4, 2002

December 31, 2002

3

1998

OOO

May 17, 2000

May 31, 200

4

2th of 1994

OOO

June 7, 199

June 30, 1999

5

Value-added Tax

2th of 1997

OOO

November 5, 2002

November 30, 2002

6

1, 1998 Low 11

OOO

May 2, 200

May 30, 200

7

201

OOO

2. 2002

July 31, 2002

8

The income tax on Angian income;

201

OOO

o October 1, 2002

November 1, 2002

Total

OOO

C. On September 21, 2011, based on the global income tax, etc. under each of the instant dispositions, the Defendant seized the expropriation compensation on the J 1151-3 and 555 square meters and 430 square meters, which the Plaintiff had against the JJ market (hereinafter “instant disposition on default”). The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition on default.

D. On December 14, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition on default, filed a request for inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s request on May 10, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition]

The facts without dispute, the entries (including household numbers) in Gap, 1, 2, and 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The Defendant asserts that, while the Plaintiff, while disputing the legality of the instant taxation disposition, the request for examination or adjudgment, which is the procedure of the previous trial, is filed within 90 days from the date (when a notice of disposition was received, the date of receipt) on which he became aware of the said taxation disposition, the part disputing the instant taxation disposition should be dismissed.

The purpose of this study is to realize a tax claim that has become effective, so if a tax disposition is invalid or non-existent, the subsequent disposition on default is also null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu162, Aug. 24, 1982). The plaintiff can contest the validity of the disposition on default on the ground that the pertinent tax disposition is null and void, regardless of whether it had undergone a prior trial procedure on each of the instant tax dispositions. In this case, the plaintiff sought revocation on the instant disposition on the ground that the instant disposition is subject to the disposition on default upon the judgment of the Tax Tribunal, and it cannot be deemed unlawful because the instant lawsuit did not go through the previous trial procedure. The defendant's main safety objection is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) In 194, the plaintiff newly constructed "YY house" on the ground of 978-13 OO-dong 1994 and sold it to OOOO, the defendant calculated the plaintiff's revenue amount excessively as OOO, and the defendant issued the tax disposition in this case ①, while the above YY house 101 was changed to 'house subject to tax exemption at the time of the sale by the plaintiff,' but the defendant issued the tax disposition in this case ④ on the premise that the above 101 was a store at the time when the above 101 was sold. In addition, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff gave advice in the process of constructing the above O-dong 979-7 in the East Sea, while the defendant imposed the value-added tax on the plaintiff under the premise that the plaintiff was supplied to K after the construction of the above O-dong 194, five tax dispositions in this case, and the above Y house 101 were the invalidity of the tax disposition per year.

(2) At the time of each of the instant taxation dispositions, the Plaintiff had a place of business on the 'OO-dong 856 1st floor in OO-dong 856 1st floor, and had resided in an unauthorized building located on the 'O-dong 79' above the 'O-dong 79' above the 'O-dong 'O-dong 79', which is the resident registration address, and could not be served on the Plaintiff due to the relevant criminal cases against the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant did not properly deliver each of the above tax dispositions to the Plaintiff, and the service of each of the above tax notices is invalid as the service by publication did not meet the requirements for service by publication.

(3) In addition, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s real estate attachment disposition as of February 9, 200 on the premise of the instant taxation disposition, and as above, ① of the instant taxation disposition as of February 9, 200, and ④ of the instant taxation disposition as of February 9, 200, the attachment disposition as of February 9, 200 was null and void, and its interruption does not take effect. Therefore, the remainder of the instant taxation disposition against the Plaintiff was completed by prescription under the National Tax Collection Act prior to the instant taxation disposition.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition on default, which was premised on the instant taxation, is null and void as a matter of course.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) First, in order to determine whether a taxation disposition is void automatically because it does not meet the taxation requirements, and to determine whether a taxation disposition is void automatically, it is insufficient to say that there are unlawful grounds for the taxation disposition. In order to determine whether a defect is significant and obvious, it must be objectively clear that the defect violates important laws and regulations, and objectively obvious. In order to determine whether a defect is serious and obvious, it is necessary to reasonably consider the purpose, significance, function, etc. of the laws and regulations which form the basis for the taxation disposition in question, and to reasonably consider the specificity of the specific case itself at the same time. In addition, the taxation disposition on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relations that form the basis for the taxation disposition in question, is significant and obvious, but if there are objective circumstances to believe that it is subject to taxation in relation to any legal relation or factual relations that is not subject to taxation, it is not clear whether it is subject to taxation, even if it is serious, and it can only be found that it is unlawful that a taxation disposition is unlawful that misleads the fact of taxation requirements even if it is apparent (see, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances, the facts found earlier, and Eul evidence No. 9, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, and the plaintiff newly constructed and sold "YYY" housing in the trade name of "YYY", and the plaintiff at least, as alleged, has been involved in the construction of a new building on the ground of the above 979-7, and there are objective circumstances that can be mistaken for the defendant as being subject to taxation, such as preparing a delegation contract between the plaintiff and Han K on the construction of a new building on the ground of the above 979-7 and the construction of a new building on the ground of the above 979-7, around March 1997.

(2) We examine whether the service of each tax notice regarding each of the instant taxation dispositions is legitimate.

(A) According to Article 10(1) and (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7008 of Dec. 30, 2003), the service of a tax payment notice shall be based on registered mail and delivered to taxpayers. On the other hand, Article 11(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where a person to receive a service is not at a place where the address or place of business is unclear, and where a person to receive a service is not at a place where the service is to be made by registered mail but is returned to the addressee’s absence, documents may be served by mail. Article 7-2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18172 of Dec. 30, 2003) provides that the service of a document delegated by Article 11(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18172 of Dec. 30, 2003).

(B) The plaintiff's 1 tax disposition was sent to the 5th 5th 6th 2th 2th 2th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 199 2th 19 202th 198.

Article 27 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the State's right to collect a national tax of less than KRW 500 million is "the extinctive prescription expires if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise it." Meanwhile, Article 28 (1) of the same Act provides that "a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription" is "a ground for seizure", and Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "a seizure under Article 45 or 46 of the same Act shall also have its effect on any delinquent amount of national tax for which the statutory due date under Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes has arrived before the ownership of the seized property is transferred." The purport of the above provision is that if the seizure is registered once, it shall have the effect of seizure as a matter of course without the need to obtain a new registration of seizure against the same person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11848, Dec. 14, 200

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in this case and the items in subparagraphs 1 and 3, and 2, the defendant's claims in this case (1) are as follows:

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.