Disposition of provisional seizure by the court upon the decision of provisional seizure shall not be subject to administrative litigation.

It is obvious that a provisional attachment is made by a court upon request of a court in accordance with civil execution procedure and the provisional attachment is made. If so, it does not constitute an exercise of public authority by an administrative agency, and thus does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal

2012Guhap2752. Confirmation of invalidity of attachment disposition, such as disposition on default

1. Limited Company A2. Stock Company BB

1. The head of the tax office;

January 27, 2014

February 13, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants confirm that the revocation of the sale and purchase of each real estate listed in the separate sheet on November 11, 2008 against the Plaintiff Company BB, the revocation of the preservation obligee’s right to revocation of the sale and purchase of each real estate, and the seizure on September 8, 2009, are null and void. The Defendants pay to the Plaintiff Company BB industry the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from September 8, 2009 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The imposition of each disposition against the Plaintiff AA(hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff AA") by the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju on January 25, 2007, and the Plaintiff AA filed a return with the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju on January 25, 2007, which did not pay the amount of value-added tax OOO for the second period of 2006. On March 8, 2007, the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju imposed the penalty tax on the Plaintiff A in addition to the additional amount of OOOO for the penalty tax paid in bad faith.

2) On July 25, 2007, Plaintiff A filed a return with the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju on the first quarter of the Value-Added Tax for the first quarter of 2007, and the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju did not pay it. On September 4, 2007, the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju imposed on Plaintiff A additional OOO on the sum of additional taxes paid for the failure to pay to the above OOOOO on September 4, 2007.

3) On October 25, 2007, Plaintiff A filed a return with the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju on the value-added tax scheduled for the second period of 2007, and the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju did not pay it. On December 5, 2007, the director of the tax office of Chungcheongju imposed penalty tax on Plaintiff A by adding the additional amount of penalty tax for failure to pay to the said director of the tax office.

4) On March 3, 2008, the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office issued a false tax invoice in an amount equivalent to the total value of supply from data merchants DD companies in the first taxable period of the Value-Added Tax in 2006, and filed a tax return after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and filing a corporate tax return after adding the amount equivalent to the value of supply to deductible expenses. On the other hand, on March 3, 2008, the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office imposed an amount of the value-added tax of the first taxable period of the year 2006, deducting the input tax amount from the input tax amount, and imposed an amount of the value-added tax of the first taxable year of 206 from

B. Designation of the secondary taxpayer by the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office

"At the time when the above tax liability of Plaintiff A was established, EE was an oligopolistic shareholder holding 90% of the shares of Plaintiff AB and at the same time, controlled and operated the Plaintiff BB industry with the largest shares of Plaintiff BB industry (hereinafter “Plaintiff BB industry”). The Plaintiff A did not fulfill the above tax liability; Defendant BB tax office designated EE as the secondary taxpayer of Plaintiff AA on Nov. 15, 2007 and April 18, 2008 on the ground that E is an oligopolistic shareholder of Plaintiff AA; and on April 18, 2008, HE owned 50% or more of the shares of Plaintiff BB industry, and designated Plaintiff BB industry as the secondary taxpayer of Plaintiff BB industry; and on April 18, 2008, Plaintiff BB industry was also designated as the secondary taxpayer of Plaintiff BB industry of Plaintiff B; and Defendant BB tax office of Plaintiff C.

1) As of May 26, 2008, Plaintiff A was in arrears with the taxes imposed under each subparagraph of the above paragraph, ① OOOOO and its additional charges imposed on the second year of value-added tax in 2006, ② OOOO and its additional charges imposed on the first year of 2007, ③ OOOO and its additional charges imposed on the second year of 2007, ④ some of the OOO and its additional charges imposed on the second year of 2006.

"2) On May 26, 2008, the head of the competent tax office imposed on the Plaintiff BB the amount equivalent to 90% of the amount in arrears on May 26, 2008, ① OOO directors, including value-added tax 2006 and its additional charges, ② OO directors, including OO directors and their additional charges of value-added tax 1 year 2007, ③ OO directors, including value-added tax 2 year 2007, ④ OOO directors and their additional charges for the second year 2007, ④ OO directors of the value-added tax 1 year 2006, ⑤ OO directors of the increased additional tax 1 year 2006, ⑤ OO directors of the competent tax office, and the increased additional tax OO directors of the competent tax office, respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

"If the plaintiff BB industry does not fulfill its tax liability under each of the dispositions of this case, the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office, on June 9, 2008, seized each of the real estate listed in the separate list owned by the plaintiff BB industry (hereinafter "each of the lands of this case") and the remaining 1/2 shares (hereinafter "each of the lands of this case") and completed the attachment registration on June 11, 2008." "E exercises its right of revocation of the defendant's right of revocation and provisional attachment on each of the lands of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea received the provisional attachment from the plaintiff B industry as the second taxpayer of the plaintiff AB on June 10, 208, by claiming that the transfer of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff B industry of this case constitutes fraudulent act." On November 10, 2008, the plaintiff B was requested to revoke the provisional attachment on each of the lands of this case as the plaintiff B's claim against the plaintiff B industry of this case by the 2008Da12081210.

1) However, the Plaintiff B industry agreed to sell each of the instant land to FF Electric Co., Ltd. on June 16, 2009, and on September 8, 2009, upon each of the instant dispositions, the Plaintiff B industry paid the total amount of its delinquent taxes imposed on September 8, 2009 (i.e., value-added Tax OOO and its additional charges that were imposed on the second year of 2006, ② OOOOO and its additional charges that were imposed on the first year of 2007, ③ OOOO and its additional charges that were imposed on the second year of 207, ③ OOO and its additional charges that were imposed on the first year of 207, ④ OOO and its increased additional taxes for the first year of 206, ⑤ OOO and its increased additional taxes for the year of 206.

2) Accordingly, on September 8, 2009, the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office released the attachment of each of the instant lands on September 9, 2009, and the registration of each of the attachment was cancelled on September 9, 2009. The Defendant Republic of Korea withdrawn the above provisional attachment application for each of the instant lands on September 14, 2009, and the registration of each of the provisional attachment was cancelled on September 15, 2009.

3) On September 8, 2009, Plaintiff B had completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the instant land to FF Electric Co., Ltd. on September 8, 2009 on the grounds of sale as of June 16, 2009.

"4) As above, the Plaintiff BB industry fulfilled all its tax liability under each of the instant dispositions, the Defendant Republic of Korea (applicable to the Plaintiff in the instant lawsuit for the revocation of the fraudulent act) was sentenced to dismissal of Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim on the ground that: (a) Defendant Republic of Korea’s tax claim against HaE did not exist in the instant lawsuit for the revocation of the fraudulent act; and (b) on November 5, 2009, Defendant Republic of Korea’s tax claim against HaE did not exist any longer; and (c) it became final and conclusive around that time.”

"The plaintiff BB industry filed a lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea on April 30, 2010 for the return of unjust enrichment under the Cheongju District Court Assistance 2010Gahap866, but the plaintiff B appealed appealed on November 26, 2010. However, on April 28, 2011, the defendant Republic of Korea was declared dismissed as the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju District Court) 2010Na2726 on April 28, 201. The plaintiff B industry was declared as the plaintiff's dismissal of appeal under the 2010Na2726 on September 8, 2009. The plaintiff BB industry appealed as the plaintiff's dismissal of the appeal under the 2010Na2726 on September 28, 2011. However, on September 20, 2011, the plaintiff B industry was appealed with the evidence Nos. 2010 to 2715 evidence No. 97.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

"A." With respect to the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the attachment disposition as of November 11, 2008 among the lawsuits in this case, "the legal nature of the claim for provisional attachment", and "1. Among the claims finally modified in the lawsuit in this case, the part of "the defendant's claim for provisional attachment as of November 11, 2008 against the plaintiff B industry is confirmed that the attachment disposition of the preserved obligee's right of revocation of purchase and sale of each land in this case is invalid." On November 10, 2008, the defendant Republic of Korea confirmed that the attachment disposition of each land in this case is invalid. The defendant's claim for provisional attachment as of November 11, 2008 against the plaintiff B as of November 10, 2008, the Cheongju District Court 2008Kadan1700, which applied for provisional attachment as to each of the shares in this case's land in this case, the defendant's claim for provisional attachment is not unlawful as to each of this case's share in this case's civil execution procedure.

"3) On the other hand, the disposition for arrears is a compulsory purification procedure conducted by the tax authority to realize the relevant tax claim based on the self-performance right where the taxpayer fails to fulfill his/her tax liability at will. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, it is clear that the above provisional seizure (the plaintiff refers to the seizure disposition) as to each land share of this case for which the plaintiffs seek confirmation of invalidation as a claim for this part of this case is made by the tax authority, is made by applying for provisional seizure to the court in accordance with the civil execution procedure, not the disposition for arrears but the civil execution procedure. Thus, this does not constitute an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation because it cannot be seen as an exercise of public power by the administrative agency. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this part of this case is unlawful, and therefore, the defendants' objection to the above principal claim is justified.

B. As to the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the forced amount of money collectible on September 8, 2009 among the lawsuits in this case, "The defendant confirmed invalidity of the forced amount of money collected on September 92, 200,29 by the defendant on September 8, 2009 against the plaintiff B industry", "The plaintiff BB industry paid the total amount of OB won on September 8, 2009 according to each of the dispositions in this case, "the forced amount of money collected on September 8, 2009," and "the plaintiff B industry paid the total amount of money collected on September 1, 2000 to the plaintiff B industry". Accordingly, according to the facts acknowledged above, it seems that the plaintiff B industry's above disposition of default was invalid in the form of an appeal suit, and there is no other evidence that the plaintiff BB industry's claims were made on the land in this case's exercise of public authority, and thus, it does not constitute an appeal suit against the plaintiff BB industry in this case's exercise of this part.

C. Whether the part concerning the claim for payment of money in the lawsuit of this case is lawful

"1) In the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiffs met all the tax liability of the plaintiff A, and thus each of the dispositions of this case is null and void. Nevertheless, the defendants, based on each of the dispositions of this case, imposed on November 11, 2008 and forced the collection of OOOO on September 8, 2009 from the plaintiff B industry, so the above seizure disposition and compulsory collection are null and void. Accordingly, the defendants filed a claim for monetary payment with the plaintiff BB industry by asserting that the above OOO and its delay damages are due to tort damages or unjust enrichment return, and the defendants are liable to pay the above OOOO and its delay damages to the plaintiff BB industry."

“3) A lawsuit seeking revocation or invalidation of an administrative disposition may be filed by combining related claims, such as a lawsuit seeking restitution of damages and unjust enrichment, related to the pertinent disposition, etc., until the closing of argument at a fact-finding court (Articles 38 and 10 of the Administrative Litigation Act). The consolidation of related claims in this case is the requirement that the original appeal litigation is lawful. Thus, if an appeal litigation is dismissed on the ground of its illegality, the relevant joined claims should also be dismissed as being unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du697, Nov. 27, 2001). In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs joined this part of the claim for invalidation of the claims against the Defendants, as seen earlier, as long as all of the petitioners filed a claim for confirmation of invalidation in this case’s lawsuit at issue is unlawful, the Defendants’ defense is unlawful as the aforementioned part of the claims are also unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.