Daegu District Court-2017-Ban-100519 ( November 02, 2017)

There is no circumstance for which the exclusion period has lapsed, and the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s taxation claim was interrupted.

The lawsuit of this case is lawful since it was filed before the exclusion period expires, and since the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's taxation claim is interrupted, the agreement on division of the inherited property of this case shall be revoked.

Article 30 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Na315176 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

Korea

s

Daegu District Court Decision 2017Da100519 Decided November 2, 2017

2018.05.09

2018.05.30

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

With respect to each share of 2/11 of the real estate listed in the attached list, the agreement between the defendant and Es on the division of inherited property concluded on March 10, 2014 shall be revoked, and the defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real name to Es.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, Article 2-i.e., and Article 3.a.2(a) of the Act as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts to be dried;

○ [B. Determination]

In the exercise of the right of revocation, the "date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation" means the date when the obligor becomes aware of the fact that the obligor had committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligor would prejudice the obligee. This is not sufficient to simply recognize the fact that the obligor had conducted an act of disposal of the property, and further, to know the existence of a specific fraudulent act and the fact that the obligor had an intent to deceive the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da247707, Jun. 15, 2017).

○ [A] The Defendant’s tax liability of the ss terminates at the expiration of the period of five years after the date of each establishment, and even if the Plaintiff seized the s’ claims for payment of the deposit money of the Incheon District Court 2008 of the ss in the Republic of Korea (if the sss were to be deposited, deposit money for the security of provisional seizure) against the Republic of Korea for the collection of delinquent taxes of the s in arrears, the ss in order to pay the deposit money should acquire the damage claim due to the tort of the s in order to pay it. Since the s inss did not have acquired the damage claim against the s inss at the time of seizure, the seizure claim for payment of the deposit money did not exist from the time of the seizure, and therefore the seizure disposition is null and void

Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the seizure of property other than a duty payment notice, demand notice or demand for delivery, as grounds for suspending extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax." Since "the seizure" refers to the commencement by a tax official of the procedure for seizing the property of a taxpayer pursuant to the provisions of Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, a tax official has the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription even in cases where a tax official searches the delinquent taxpayer's house, vessel, warehouse, and other places under Article 26 of the National Tax Collection Act, but fails to carry out the seizure and prepares a search report without any execution thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da12419, Aug. 21, 2001).

In light of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 3 as a whole, the plaintiff seizes the right to claim the payment of the deposit money from the Incheon District Court of Ess on September 22, 2009 and April 27, 2010 for the collection of delinquent taxes by Ess, and the fact that the above seizure disposition was notified to the Incheon District Court around that time. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the above seizure of the plaintiff was effective for the interruption of prescription regardless of the existence of the seized object after the notification of seizure (in addition, it is reasonable to deem that the claims subject to seizure are not actually generated at the time of seizure, but can also be subject to the condition or time of suspension, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no claims for the payment of deposit of Es at the time of the plaintiff's seizure.)

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.