Whether a seizure disposition is lawful

The burden of proving that a seizure disposition is null and void shall be presented to the claimant, and it shall not be recognized because the plaintiff does not produce any evidence to prove that the plaintiff did not obtain business income from his business registration.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act: Requirements for Attachment

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancellation of the seizure registration completed by ○○ District Court ○○○ Branch ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on each real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the whole purport of pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-1 through 5, 2-1 through 4, 2-1 through 3, and 3:

A. On May 6, 200, the Defendant imposed a notice on the Plaintiff on May 31, 200 on: (a) the amount of income accrued from each business registration for the business income for the year 1994 (274,040,969 won (2) 672,410 won (2) 71,930,000 won (2) 71,930,000 won (○○-○-○-○-○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○) as global income tax and additional dues for the Plaintiff’s total amount of 3,28,040 won as of May 31, 200; (b) although the Defendant investigated the Plaintiff’s property for the disposition on default, but failed to discover any property that could be appropriated for the default, the Defendant imposed a disposition on deficits on April 25, 2001.

B. After that, the defendant found each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") and partially revoked the disposition of deficits on February 12, 2003 (the above disposal of deficits seems to have been revoked following the increase in land prices of each real estate of this case after the above disposal of deficits) and completed the seizure registration of each real estate of this case based on the above seizure disposition of February 13, 2003.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff completed the above three business registration under the name of the plaintiff, and among which, he received business income from the business registration of ○○-○-○○○ and ○○-○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the plaintiff asserts that even though he did not have received business income of 274,040,969 as alleged by the defendant through the business registration of ○○-○○-○○○○○○○○○, he imposed comprehensive income tax on each of the of the of the of the of the instant real estates, and that the seizure disposition on each of the instant real estates is null and void, and thus the attachment registration on each of the instant real estates completed accordingly is also null and void. Thus, the defendant asserts that he is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration

B. Determination

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the attachment disposition on each of the instant real estate by the defendant is null and void. However, as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not obtain business income of KRW 274,649,969 by the business registration of ○○-○○○○○○○○○○, and therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the attachment disposition is null and void is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Table 3

1. ○○-si ○○-ri ○-○ 258 square meters;

2. The end of ○○○-ri, ○○-ri, 258 square meters prior to ○○-ri, ○○-ri.