Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2013Nu920 ( October 15, 2014)

(Incompetence of Trial) The interruption of prescription of seizure is not effective, as a matter of course, without the need to complete a new registration of seizure even the tax amount in arrears arising after

(C) The Defendant’s tax claim under each of the instant taxation dispositions was still in existence at the time of the disposition on default, and thus, the Defendant’s tax claim under each of the instant taxation dispositions was still in existence at the time of the disposition on default.

Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Du14570 Revocation of Disposition on Default

KimA

○ Head of tax office

The second instance decision

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2013Nu920 ( October 15, 2014)

2015.03.12

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Thus, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by