Seoul Central District Court-2015-Gohap-59856 ( March 29, 2016)

Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful and thereby the plaintiff's damage is recognized.

The disposition of this case is reasonable in the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim, because there is no official's intention or negligence, and the plaintiff's assertion alone does not recognize a causal relationship between the disposition of this case and the plaintiff's damage.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court 2016-Na202590

Formation base

Korea

2016.08.26

2016.23

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why this Court has used in relation to the instant case are added to the following parts:

The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is in accordance with the main text of

I accept it as it is.

(a)Paragraph 4 of the fourth decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

In addition, the head of the AA Tax Office to which the defendant belongs shall notify the decision of the tax assessment of this case as of December 6, 2011.

Before giving notice of taxation, the plaintiff did not receive a pre-assessment review. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall undergo a pre-assessment review.

In case of deprivation of opportunity, this constitutes a serious illegal act infringing the plaintiff's procedural right.

(c)";

(b) Evidence proving that "no evidence to acknowledge objection exists" in paragraph 14 of the sixth decision of the court of first instance;

No longer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da209534 Decided October 29, 2015, etc., which held the plaintiff)

in light of the circumstances, etc., the case in which a public official belonging to the defendant cannot be recognized as intentional or negligent

Because the issue is different, it cannot be applied as it is in this case).

(c)in the following cases at the seventh and tenth level of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:

[C] Illegal acts due to defects in the notice of pre-announcement of taxation

Any evidence to prove that the Director of the AA did not give notice of taxation.

There is no notice of taxation by the head of AA Tax Office according to the statement in Section 3-1 and Section 2 of Section 3.

Since it was recognized that the pre-assessment review was applied on September 2, 201, the part of the plaintiff is recognized.

We cannot accept the argument."

(d)as follows, in the seventh and Fifteenth sentence of the first instance court, add the following:

[The property damage and mental damage claimed by the plaintiff is illegal to the plaintiff.]

upon the close of the registration of the seizure of this case to the plaintiff's real property, the corporation of this case

The plaintiff is the chief director of the corporation, as the plaintiff is dissolved due to default on payment.

Property damage which could not be paid a monthly amount equivalent to the monthly benefit, and as the chief director of the corporation in this case

The consolation money refers to the amount of mental suffering resulting from the dissolution of the above corporation, even if so.

Section 1, even if there was a tort committed by a public official belonging to the defendant in relation to the tax disposition

The plaintiff's assertion is solely based on each statement of the evidence of heading 8, 10, 11 (including branch numbers, if any).

not having a proximate causal relationship between the damage and the damage, and otherwise the evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion falls under damages arising from special circumstances. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes damages due to special circumstances.

(BBB of the Administrative Director BB of the Corporation and CCC of the General Affairs Division)

(A) The taxation disposition in this case by a public official belonging to the defendant against the plaintiff only on the basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 7 and 11

upon the completion of the registration of seizure of the Plaintiff’s real property, the corporation of this case may obtain a loan

'I will be dissolved due to default on payment' or 'I will receive the plaintiff as the chief director.

(1) The amount of the monthly benefit that could not have been paid shall not be the amount of the monthly benefit, etc.;

It cannot be readily determined that the special circumstance was aware or could have been aware of, and otherwise, evidence to prove it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case from this point of view.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.