It is difficult to deem that there was an unlawful performance of duties against the defendant

In light of the defendant's business, it is difficult to see that the defendant committed an unlawful act of performing his duties, and since the registration of seizure of real estate owned by the corporation cannot be cancelled due to the payment of delinquent amount

National Tax Collection Act

Suwon District Court 2015-Ja-269 Damage Compensation

AA

Republic of Korea and 2

on October 21, 2015

on 015 07 09

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 68,418,400 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person retired from office while working in XX City Forestry Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as the “Union”), and Defendant BB is a public official working in the Defendant’s Republic of Korea from February 27, 2007 to February 16, 2008 *** the value-added income tax and the value-added tax.

B. (i)CC is the representative of Y video (hereinafter referred to as “Y video”) and Defendant DD is the CC.

YY 2) The 2.0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 199-8 654 . 00 . 0 . 00 . 00 . 199-12 . 127 . 2 . 1998 . 4 . 0 . 2 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 . 9 . 1 0 . 1 . 2 . 4 . 1 . 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 4 . 1 . 2 . 196 . 3 . 1 . 1 . 4 . 1 . 196 . 1 . 20 . 1 . 3 . 1 . 196 . 3 . 1 . 200 . . 00 . 3 .

F.** On August 6, 2010, in the instant auction case, the delinquent taxpayer submitted a request for delivery with the amount of YY and the amount of the request for delivery to KRW 130,681,510, and thereafter on October 25, 2010, the dividend table containing the following details as to KRW 199,274,074, to be distributed in the instant auction case.

G. After that, on April 24, 2013, the Disciplinary Action Committee, which belongs to the instant association, decided to punish the Plaintiff and compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 68,418,400, on the ground that the Plaintiff was liable for a huge loss due to the significant factual issues related to the instant loan, etc., and accordingly, on July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 68,418,400 (hereinafter “instant indemnity”).

【Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, 3, 1*2, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 2-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In fact, around February 4, 2008, there was a significant amount of YY national taxes in arrears, and Defendant 2B, who is a public official of the Republic of Korea, ** on February 4, 2008 due to intentional or gross negligence, Defendant DD's delinquency in national taxes * on July 4, 2008 * on July 1, 2008, Defendant Doctrine informed Defendant Doctrine that the amount of national taxes in arrears Y is 2,779,40 won (the amount equivalent to global income tax in arrears, and on April 8, 2008, Defendant Doctrine notified 2,820,660 won including delay damages) and only the above delinquent amount can be cancelled * on account of intentional or gross negligence, Defendant Doctrine's failure to pay corporate taxes in arrears * on the loan of this case was notified that Defendant Doctrine's failure to pay national taxes in full YB as national taxes.

(2) Accordingly, the instant association paid KRW 2,820,60 in arrears on April 8, 2008 by Defendant DDD paid KRW 2,820,660 in full, and the registration of the instant seizure was believed to be an expected cancellation date, and upon Defendant DD’s execution of the instant loan, concluded a mortgage contract, etc. to secure the instant loan obligations with Y video, etc., and completed the instant establishment registration, etc. of the mortgage. After that, on October 25, 2010, the instant auction case paid KRW ** 105,325,436 due to the delinquency in payment of YY’s national taxes from the instant auction case, * KRW 93,685,458 of the principal and interest of the instant loan was not collected, and the Plaintiff did not pay the instant loan to the instant association, and the Plaintiff did not collect KRW 6848,408,480,6848 of the instant indemnity.

Secondly, Defendant BB and its non-persons, who are public officials under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, violated the above duties and statutes intentionally, by negligence, while performing their duties, and Defendant DD also suffered damages equivalent to the indemnity of this case from the Plaintiff by neglecting the above tort as stated in the loan of this case, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to 68,418,400 won and damages for delay.

B. Determination

First, in the course of the loan of this case, it is difficult to believe that part of the evidence Nos. 5, which appears to correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, as it is, is nothing more than 1 to 5, 2-1 to 6, and 2-1 to 5, 2-5, and part of the evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 2-1 to 5, and 5 were included in the evidence Nos. 1 to 6, and that the evidence Nos. 8, 6, 208, 6, 6, 8, 200, 200, 6, 6, 300, 6, 60, 6, 300, 60, 600, 6, 60, 60, 60, 600, 60, 300, 60, 60, 60, 300, 60, 60, 60, 2008.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.