Whether the Plaintiff is the taxpayer of this case and whether there is a benefit of the lawsuit of this case

The plaintiff company filed the lawsuit of this case regarding the attachment of the plaintiff company's assets in relation to the default of value-added tax in the Boan City Branch, but currently the related arrears in this case were paid in full and the seizure was cancelled, and there was no benefit of this case.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daejeon District Court 2017Guhap105189

As long as a seizure disposition is cancelled, it shall affect the current plaintiff's rights or legal status.

In addition, it is difficult to see that there is no direct dispute as to the existence of value-added tax liability.

on its behalf, seeking the invalidity of the attachment disposition of this case is currently the Plaintiff’s right or law.

The most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks or uneasiness with respect to the position.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff has the interest in confirmation, and the Defendant’s principal safety

Defenses are reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

***

ㅁㅁ세무서장

National Rotations

2018.4.4

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Disposition by the Defendant on May 27, 2015 regarding the real estate stated in the separate sheet issued by the Plaintiff is null and void.

confirmation.

1. Case summary

A. On May 21, 2015, the Defendant issued a seizure disposition (hereinafter “instant seizure disposition”) on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the grounds of default of value-added tax, and accordingly, the registration of seizure was completed on May 27, 2015.

B. Upon the Plaintiff’s payment of the value-added tax in arrears, the Defendant released the instant attachment disposition on August 26, 2016, and accordingly, the registration of the attachment of the instant real estate was cancelled on August 29, 2016. [Grounds for Recognition] There was no dispute, Gap’s 6, 12, and 13 evidence (including serial numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Since the attachment disposition of this case was cancelled due to the cancellation of the attachment registration, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B. Determination

1) In principle, a lawsuit for confirmation is permissible in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the present rights or legal status. As to the past legal relations, it has an impact on the present rights or legal status, and it is recognized that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the said legal relations is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions in the present rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1496, Nov. 26, 2002).

2) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant attachment disposition was unlawful, and its defect is significant and apparent, and thus there is a benefit to seek confirmation of invalidity of the attachment disposition of this case. However, as seen earlier, it constitutes seeking confirmation of the past legal relations, seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the attachment disposition of this case already cancelled, and seeking confirmation of the past legal relations.