Suwon District Court-2017-Guhap64584 ( November 14, 2017)

Refusal to cancel the attachment does not violate the principle of good faith.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The reason for cancellation of attachment did not occur, and the response following the confirmation of the amount in arrears cannot be deemed as a public statement of opinion due to the confirmation of facts, and thus does not violate the principle of good faith.

Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Nu84541 Revocation of revocation of revocation of attachment

BAA

CC director of the tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap64548 Decided November 14, 2017

June 20, 2018

July 18, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's rejection of cancellation of attachment is revoked on August 5, 2016 against BB 00-00 BB5 BB5 apartment No. 000, 000, the plaintiff on August 5, 2016.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The Plaintiff asserts as follows. The Plaintiff’s purchaser of the instant real estate is not the direct counterpart or taxpayer of the reply of the commissioner of the Regional Tax Office, but the Plaintiff requested the EEE to verify the amount of delinquent taxes at the request of the head of the Regional Tax Office, and the purpose of the request was to release the seizure of the instant real estate after the payment of delinquent taxes, and thus the Plaintiff becomes the subject of trust in the reply of the head of the Regional Tax Office. Furthermore, the reply of delinquent local taxes to the EEE EE shall be deemed to have been indirectly expressed by the director of the Regional Tax Office that the payment of delinquent taxes would be rescinded upon the payment of delinquent taxes. The Plaintiff was transferred the title of the instant real estate by trust in the reply of the commissioner of the Regional Tax Office to EEE and the commitment of the payment of delinquent taxes by the EEEEE. Therefore, the disposition rejecting the request for the cancellation of delinquent taxes shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

On the other hand, as recognized in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, the Plaintiff does not fall under the other party to the reply of the amount in arrears of the commissioner of the Regional Tax Office or the taxpayer, and the act of confirming and notifying the amount in arrears is merely a simple factual act that does not involve any legal effect, and it is difficult to view it as a public opinion statement by itself. The Plaintiff’s assertion on other premise is without merit

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the pertinent disposition should also be revoked on the ground that the pertinent attachment is null and void on the grounds that the DNA regional tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant sent a reply to verify that the amount of national taxes in arrears is KRW 0,000,000 to the EE on May 23, 2012 at the request of the EEE, and that the instant disposition should also be revoked on the ground that the instant attachment is null and void because it did not have issued or urged a tax notice on the national taxes in arrears to the EE before the instant attachment was conducted.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3 of this case, the defendant sent two notices to EE on September 8, 201 and September 9, 2011 by registered mail (registration number 10990 million, 1098000000, 100000), and delivered two notices on October 10, 201 by registered mail (registration number 1098000, 109800000, 109800000). The plaintiff's assertion on other premise is without merit.

3 Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.