There is the effect of seizure as a matter of course without being required to complete a new registration of seizure for the arrears that occurred after the registration of seizure.

If a seizure is registered once, the delinquent amount incurred after the registration of seizure for the same person has the effect of seizure as a matter of course without the need to obtain new registration of seizure.

Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of Right to Collect National Taxes)

Article 28 (Interruption and Suspension of Prescription for National Taxes)

2017Guhap6640 Revocation of Attachment of Dividends and Return of Seized Money

AA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

October 26, 2017

December 21, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Seoul Northern District Court on the real estate stated in the attached Table that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2017

Attachment Disposition on 00,000,000 won of dividends received by the plaintiff in the auction case No. 2016,000

B. A cancellation. The Defendant shall revoke the Plaintiff’s above 00,000,000 won and the above 15% per annum from February 17, 2017 to the service date of the complaint, and from the next day to the day of full payment, each of the above 00,000 won per annum with respect to the Plaintiff.

pay any money calculated by the Corporation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, on July 31, 2006, failed to pay the total amount of 00,000,000 won of national taxes, including value-added tax, etc. (hereinafter “the amount in arrears”).

B. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 00,000 with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list. On April 20, 2016, the compulsory auction procedure was initiated on April 20, 2016, and the registration of sale was completed on January 17, 2017. In the said compulsory auction procedure, the distribution schedule was finalized that distributes to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, the amount of KRW 00,000 (hereinafter “instant dividend”).

C. The defendant's right to claim the withdrawal of the plaintiff's dividends of this case to collect the delinquent amount of this case.

On February 17, 2017, the dividend of this case was collected and appropriated for the delinquent amount.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s taxation claim regarding the instant arrears has expired from July 2006 to July 10, 2016, which was the date of the final notice of the instant arrears, and around March 23, 2005, since the Defendant’s seizure of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff was also March 23, 2005, the seizure of the Defendant’s claim for the payment of dividends after the ten-year extinctive prescription of the collection right was unlawful. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked, and the Defendant must return the dividend already collected to the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 27(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013) provides that the State’s right to collect national taxes shall be extinguished if it is not exercised for five years from the time it is possible to exercise such right. In addition, Article 28(1)4 of the same Act provides that extinctive prescription under Article 27 shall be interrupted by reasons such as seizure, etc., and Article 28(2)4 of the same Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription interrupted under paragraph (1) shall begin to run anew from the time when the period of cancellation

According to Eul evidence No. 3, the defendant completed the attachment registration on June 17, 2004 and March 28, 2005 on the plaintiff's share of OO-O building O-O building's O-O-O building's O-O-O-O-O-O-O's share, and even until now, the attachment registration is not cancelled, and the defendant still remains valid.

In addition, the purport of Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, which is prescribed in accordance with policy considerations to secure the collection of national taxes, is to have the effect of seizure as a matter of course, without the need to obtain a new registration of seizure as to the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration of seizure for the same person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50625, Jul. 26, 2012). As long as the registration of seizure completed effectively with respect to the above real estate exists without cancellation, the extinctive prescription as to the total delinquent amount in this case is still interrupted.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the statute of limitations for the arrears of this case has expired is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.