Whether extinctive prescription of collection right has expired

The extinctive prescription of the right to collect delinquent national taxes was interrupted on the date of the first attachment disposition, and the attachment was canceled upon the termination of the public auction procedure, and the second attachment disposition is within five years thereafter, and thus, the second attachment disposition is lawful as it was conducted within the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect taxes.

Article 28 (Interruption and Suspension of Prescription)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Any attachment disposition taken by the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s deposit account (Account Number ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○)

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, 3, 5-1, 5, 1, 2, 4-2, 4-1, 2, 3, 6-2, 9 and 10-2, and 9 and 10-2.

A. On August 5, 1995, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○ 186 square meters, and 91.5 square meters in a single-story house, 39.21 square meters in an underground room, and ○○-○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ , on the ground of sale on July 28, 1995.

B. However, on December 31, 1995 following the sale of each of the above real estate, the Plaintiff defaulted on the national tax of KRW 1,328,060 for the payment period (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) of KRW 79,573,090 for the transfer income tax for the payment period on June 30, 1996, KRW 4,336,870 for the global income tax for the payment period on August 31, 1997, KRW 11,260 for the transfer income tax for the payment period, KRW 96,498,360 for the total amount of KRW 11,340 for the transfer income tax for the payment period (hereinafter the “instant delinquent national tax”).

C. From November 27, 1997 to August 28, 1998, the Defendant disposed of the instant delinquent taxes in accordance with Article 86(1) of the National Tax Collection Act on the ground that the Plaintiff had no property to collect delinquent taxes.

D. However, on October 12, 1999, the Defendant confirmed that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 191 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”). On July 18, 200, the Defendant revoked the instant disposition on the disposal of the deficit on the instant national tax in arrears (hereinafter “the instant disposition on the disposal of deficit”). On July 24, 200, the instant real property was seized (hereinafter “the instant first disposition on the disposal of deficit”). On August 26, 2004, the Defendant requested a public sale to sell the instant real property to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on August 2

E. After that, on November 4, 2004 and the 5th day of the same month, the Defendant seized the remainder of the Plaintiff’s insurance account at the Plaintiff’s account at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Meanwhile, at the time of the second attachment disposition, the deposit account in the instant attachment account was opened on October 1, 1994 and deposited on the same day. The insurance account was opened on March 22, 1996, and the insurance period was set up until March 22, 2017, and the disposable insurance premium was KRW 7,870,500 as the payable insurance premium.

F. On December 30, 2004, the Plaintiff appealed against the second attachment, and filed an appeal with ○○○○○○ on December 30, 2004, and the ○○○○○○○ rejected the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 13, 2005.

2. Whether the seizure disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 86 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6053 of Dec. 28, 1999; hereinafter referred to as the "former National Tax Collection Act") provides that ○○○ shall cancel the disposition of deficit and order the disposition of arrears only when he finds that there was another property seized at the time of the disposition of deficit.

However, the seizure account of this case cannot be deemed to include the property that can be seized at the time of August 28, 1998, which is the date of the final disposition of default on national taxes, and the cancellation of the disposition of this case is also illegal against Article 86 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act, since the real estate acquisition date of this case is after the disposition of this case. Furthermore, as long as the cancellation of the disposition of this case is illegal, the first seizure disposition of this case, which is premised on the cancellation of the disposition of this case, also becomes invalid as the interruption of prescription, and thus, the right to

Therefore, the cancellation of the disposition of loss in this case and the second seizure disposition in this case premised on the validity of the first seizure disposition in this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189, Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) provides that the obligation to pay national taxes shall be extinguished when the disposal of deficit is made. Article 86 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that when any other seizable property is discovered at the time of disposal of deficit, the obligation to pay national taxes shall be revoked and the disposition for arrears shall be revoked without delay.

Therefore, whether the seizure account of this case was an asset that could have been seized at the time of the disposition of deficits as of August 28, 1998 on the national tax in arrears, and the above deposit account was kept a balance of KRW 100,000 which was opened on October 1, 1994 and deposited on the same day, and the above insurance account was established on March 22, 1996 and was paid monthly insurance premium every time thereafter, all of the above insurance accounts were included in the scope of the assets that can be seized at the time of the disposition of deficits as of August 28, 1998. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

(2) Effect of revocation of write-off of this case

However, since the defendant issued the second attachment disposition of this case based on the cancellation of the write-off of this case, we examine whether the revocation of the write-off of this case is valid.

(A) As long as it is evident that the acquisition date of the Plaintiff’s ownership of the real estate in this case was after the disposal date of August 28, 1998 for the national tax in this case, the real estate in this case cannot be included in the scope of the seizable property at the time of the disposal of delinquent national taxes under Article 86(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act. Thus, the cancellation of the disposal of the present real estate in this case is unlawful in violation of Article 86(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act. However, in light of all circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the fact that the real estate in this case was included in the scope of the property for which the cancellation of the disposal of the present real estate in this case was possible under Article 86(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6053, Dec. 28, 1999), it is difficult to view that the above defects existing in the disposal date of the present real estate in this case was serious and apparent.

(B) As to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the real estate in this case was concealed from August 5, 1995 to March 16, 196 that the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the real estate sold from August 5, 1995 to March 16, 196, and that the real estate in this case is included in the scope of the property that can be seized at the time of the disposal of the delinquent national tax. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff concealed the sale price of the real estate sold from August 5, 1995 to March 16, 196, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is no other evidence to prove that there is the Plaintiff (On the other hand, the Defendant has the burden of proving the source of the real estate acquisition fund in this case, but in principle, the Defendant, who is the tax authority, bears the burden of proving the legal requirements related to the taxation disposition, and merely on

Next, as the former National Tax Collection Act was amended by Act No. 6053 on December 28, 1999, the scope of the property subject to cancellation of disposal was mitigated. Since the above revised National Tax Collection Act applies to the cancellation of disposal of this case, it is argued that the above revised National Tax Collection Act applies to the cancellation of disposal of this case, the health class, the former National Tax Collection Act was amended by Act No. 6053, and the new real estate was acquired after the disposal of disposal in accordance with the purpose of the revised Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996, excluded from the cause for extinguishment of the obligation to pay national taxes). However, in the case of disposal of deficits conducted until the former National Tax Collection Act was amended, it is possible to cancel the disposal of deficits only when it is discovered that there was another property at the time of disposal of deficits under the former National Tax Collection Act, and it is not acceptable to accept the defendant's assertion that disposal of deficits can be revoked and disposed of even after the newly acquired property after the disposal of losses against the taxpayer (referring to the above principle of taxation).

(C) However, according to Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act, a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of an administrative disposition must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition became known, and within one year from the date of the disposition, and where the preceding disposition and the subsequent disposition independently aim at legal effects different from each other, the validity of the subsequent disposition shall not be contested on the ground of the defect of the preceding disposition except for the case where the defect of the preceding disposition is significant and obvious (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10075, Mar. 22, 196). The first disposition and the second disposition of this case are aimed at legal effects different from each other, and as seen above, the defect in the cancellation of the initial disposition and the second disposition of this case should be limited to the extent of grounds for revocation of the attachment, and as such, the plaintiff cannot be seen as legitimate from the date of the cancellation of the first disposition and the first disposition of this case, as long as there is no evidence that the period of cancellation of the attachment and the first disposition of this case had been more valid (the first disposition of this case as of this case).

(3) Extinctive prescription of the instant right to collect national taxes in arrears

As to this, the Plaintiff alleged that the instant attachment disposition was unlawful since the five-year statute of limitation has expired after the disposition on default on national taxes was made after the disposition on default on national taxes was made, it is clear that the statute of limitation has expired unless the State’s right to collect national taxes is exercised for five years from the time it can be exercised. The second attachment disposition of this case was made after the lapse of five years from the final disposition on default on national taxes on August 28, 1998.

However, according to Article 28(1)4 and 28(2)4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the statute of limitations on the right to collect national taxes of this case is suspended due to the seizure, and the new proceeding is proceeding upon the cancellation of the seizure. As seen earlier, the defendant seized the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff on July 24, 200 after the cancellation of the disposition of this case, and the public sale procedure is terminated on August 26, 2004. Thus, if the above circumstances were to exist, the statute of limitations on the right to collect national taxes of this case was interrupted on July 24, 200, which was the date of the first disposition of seizure, and the public sale procedure was terminated on August 26, 2004, and it was apparent that five years have not elapsed since the second disposition of this case was made within the period of the right to collect the national taxes of this case (the plaintiff's second disposition of this case). Thus, the plaintiff's second disposition of this case cannot dispute the validity of the seizure disposition of this case.

(4) Therefore, the instant secondary attachment disposition is a lawful disposition under Article 86(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.