Since December 30, 1996, which was excluded from write-off on the grounds of extinction of liability for payment, the attachment disposition of this case is legitimate.

Since a disposition of deficits was made after December 30, 1996, which was excluded from the disposition of deficits from the grounds for non-performance of obligations, the obligation to pay the taxation of this case is not extinguished due to the disposition of deficits, and the attachment disposition of this case is legitimate.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Nu45348 Confirmation of invalidity, etc. of property seizure procedures

KimA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 19, 2017

October 10, 2017

1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim that was changed alternatively in this court shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal as to the main claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On March 4, 1996, the Defendant confirmed that the attachment disposition against the Plaintiff 268-8 large scale 134 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff on March 4, 1996, is null and void. Preliminaryly, the Defendant confirmed that the omission against the Plaintiff on March 4, 1996, which the Defendant did not release the attachment against the Plaintiff 268-8 large scale 134 square meters, was illegal (the Plaintiff changed the conjunctive claim from this court to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission).

1. Determination as to the circumstances and surrounding claims

The reasons for the court's judgment in this section are as follows. The reasons for the court's judgment

The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance ("1. Reasons for the disposition" and "3. The judgment of the main claim among the lawsuits of this case"). Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

○ At the 3rd bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

In addition, as of September 12, 1998, there is no capital gains tax to be additionally paid by the plaintiff.

confirmed (section 3).

○ At the fourth bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

(On the other hand, the plaintiff did not transfer the assets for two years before the seizure disposition of this case, and the taxation of this case

Since there is no way to know what is the basis of the instant taxation disposition, in order to prove the invalidity of the instant taxation disposition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant taxation disposition need to be proved first. However, since the Defendant cited the transfer of land, etc. in FF Dong 165-2 as the basis of the instant taxation disposition, the Plaintiff is sufficient to clarify that the said transfer cannot be the basis of the instant taxation disposition, or to dispute the validity of the instant taxation disposition on the premise that the said transfer is the basis of the instant taxation disposition).

○ The following shall be added at least 5 7 pages of the judgment of the first instance court:

3) Determination as to the third proposal

According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement of No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the amount of tax payable currently by the Plaintiff.

47,212,620 won is recognized, and on the other hand, the amount of capital gains tax originally imposed on the Plaintiff.

26,763,580 won, and the amount of tax paid by the plaintiff is in full of 158,740 won on September 12, 1998, the third proposal by the plaintiff is without merit that there is no capital gains tax to be additionally paid by the plaintiff.

○ The judgment of the first instance court 5 '5 '8 '3 '4' has been taken into '4 '4'.

2. Determination as to the conjunctive claim that is changed in exchange

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In this case, the transfer income tax to be paid additionally by the plaintiff is written off by the defendant

Since the taxation disposition has become extinct, the defendant is obliged to release the seizure of the land of this case.In that sense, the defendant does not do so, and such omission by the defendant is illegal.

B. Determination

1) A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission is filed against a person who has filed a request for a disposition, seeking confirmation of illegality of the omission.

A lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission is unlawful, as a legal interest can only be brought by a person (Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Act). In a case where a party fails to file a request with an administrative agency for an administrative act, or a party does not have any legal or logical right to demand that such administrative act be carried out, it cannot be deemed that there is no standing to sue, or an illegal omission that is the object of an appeal litigation. (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du7853, Oct. 26, 2007).

2) According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, the plaintiff's transfer income tax out of the above transfer income tax to the defendant on September 12, 1998

Although payment of KRW 158,740 is recognized, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above fact or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was filed with the Defendant on September 12, 1998, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the lawsuit for the conjunctive claim of this case is unlawful since there is no omission, which is the object of appeal litigation (On the other hand, as seen in the judgment of the first instance court cited earlier, it cannot be deemed that there was no transfer income tax to be additionally paid by the Plaintiff or that the obligation to pay the instant tax was extinguished due to the disposition on deficits, and therefore it is difficult to deem that the Defendant has the obligation to release

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's preliminary claim that was changed in exchange in this court is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed (the plaintiff's preliminary claim that was changed in exchange is withdrawn from the claim due to a change in exchange, so the judgment of the court of first instance was invalidated).

The plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be concluded.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed due to the lack of reason.