(a) The validity of attachment disposition on any national tax that may not be collected without a procedure for requesting the provision of security for tax payment;

(b) Appropriateness of attachment disposition on the grounds of delinquency in payment of the relevant tax on the property which caused the transfer income tax; and

(a) If the chief of a tax office considers it impossible to collect the national taxes concerned, the disposition of seizure of the property against the taxpayer's property without going through the procedure of demanding the provision of security shall not be deemed to be an unlawful disposition which lacks the requirements under Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, or a disposition of invalidation as a grave and obvious defect.

B. Since the property devolving upon the taxpayer and having pecuniary value is all subject to seizure unless the legal seizure is prohibited, even if the cause of the transfer income tax is the cause of the transfer income tax, the registration title remains in the taxpayer and the ownership is attributed to the taxpayer.

(a) Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act;

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu488 delivered on August 16, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the evidence of the judgment of the court below, the facts of the judgment (However, prior to the disposition of seizure on July 15, 1981, the remaining facts of the judgment excluding the fact that the defendant requested the plaintiff to provide a security for tax payment under Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act) are lawful, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

If the facts are the same as the above original facts confirmed by the court below, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is likely to evade the tax (Article 125 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act) and the taxpayer who is deemed to be unable to collect the national tax imposed and notified occasionally (Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act). Therefore, the judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 125 of the Income Tax Act.

In case where the head of a tax office imposes occasional taxes on taxpayers pursuant to tax-related Acts, if he deems it impossible to collect the national taxes concerned, and if the taxpayer fails to comply with the request of the head of a tax office for the provision of security, he may seize the taxpayer’s property (Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act). Thus, the attachment disposition on the taxpayer’s property, which the head of a tax office did not request the taxpayer to provide security, is illegal disposal because it is defective as the requirements are insufficient, but the illegality of such attachment disposition cannot be deemed to be a grave and obvious defect.

In this regard, the court below's decision that the attachment disposition was immediately made without going through the procedure of demanding the provision of security was erroneous by failing to meet the requirements under Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, but it cannot be viewed as an invalidation disposition as a grave and obvious defect is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is reasonable that the court below, without evidence, acknowledged that the defendant requested the plaintiff to provide security for tax payment under Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act twice prior to the disposition of seizure of July 15, 1981 and that it reached the plaintiff before July 15, 1981. However, even if the court below did not request the security prior to the seizure of this case, the seizure of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void merely because it did not include the seizure disposition of January 7, 1981, but it did not include the seizure disposition of July 15, 1981. As seen above, the court below's error such as the theory that the court below acknowledged the above fact without evidence did not affect the conclusion of rejection of the plaintiff's claim because it did not affect the conclusion of rejection of the plaintiff's claim.

Since the property belonging to the taxpayer and the transfer and acquisition of the property are all subject to seizure, unless the seizure is prohibited by law, it shall be subject to seizure as long as the name of registration remains in the plaintiff and the ownership is attributed to the plaintiff, and from the opposite point of view, the argument that the above land is not subject to seizure of the second seizure disposition (as of July 15, 1981), is a new statement of fact that it reaches the party member and cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal. The argument that all of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)