2015Nu31932

Attachment is a cause for interruption of extinctive prescription

(1) As extinctive prescription against the right to collect the national tax is interrupted by the seizure, the defendant seized the claim to collect the tax of this case on October 26, 2004 and October 28, 2004, and thereby, the extinctive prescription against the defendant's right to collect the national tax of this case was interrupted. Even if the fact of seizure was not notified to the delinquent taxpayer, it does not affect the validity of the seizure.

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap30644 Decided December 11, 2014

September 18, 2015

October 16, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On June 14, 2013, the Defendant confirmed on June 14, 2013 that: (a) an insurance contract refund claim held by the Plaintiff against ○○○○○ Stock Company; (b) a related claim; and (c) a claim for the return of shares against ○○ Securities Company; and each attachment disposition against the related claims is invalid.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this judgment shall be with the exception of dismissal or addition of the following:

Therefore, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the grounds for the judgment of the first instance.

this shall be quoted.

(1) The second face "94,736,230 won" in the parallel 8 shall be deemed to be "94,874,230 won".

② On the 4th page, “○○-○○○○ number” in the 2nd page is changed to “○○-○○ number”.

(3) The 4th parallel 6th parallels to 16th parallels are as follows:

“2) The head of ○○ Tax Office around October 2, 200 on the premise that the Plaintiff is a business operator of the instant workplace.

A notice of tax payment of 1,819,440 won (including additional taxes) for global income tax for the year 1997, and around May 13, 2001

The tax notice of KRW 54,712,220 and KRW 5,471,220 of global income tax for 196 and KRW 5,471,220, each of which was served by registered mail, was served by ○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○○○, each at the time of the plaintiff's domicile.

3) On the other hand, the head of ○○○○○○○○○ shall revert from the head of ○○ Tax Office in 1996 to the Plaintiff.

Resident Tax 5,471,220 won and additional dues on November 11, 2002, after being notified of the details of imposition of resident tax, to the Plaintiff.

A notice of tax in arrears imposing KRW 1,389,610 was issued, and the plaintiff is dissatisfied with this, and 203.

10. 23. The above disposition shall be taken against the head of ○○-si, Incheon District Court 2013Guhap3523.

On October 13, 2005, the judgment of winning the plaintiff for the following reasons shall be rendered by filing a lawsuit seeking a lawsuit.

The above judgment was affirmed, and it became final and conclusive (hereinafter “prior final and conclusive judgment of this case”);

(4) Grades 5, 16 through 19 shall be improved as follows:

“4) As to the global income tax and additional dues for the year 1997, among the instant taxation disposition

On November 20, 200, with respect to global income tax and additional dues for the year 1996, June 19, 201, the notice of demand was issued to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2001 as the date of each due date for payment. In order to collect the instant taxation, the Plaintiff seized the other monetary claims against ○○ Life Insurance and ○○ Fire, respectively on October 26, 2004 and October 28, 2004.

(5) The 5th page "(4)" shall be changed to "5th(5)."

(6) On the 5th page 24, “A evidence 2,” and “B” shall be added to the following:

(7) Grades 6, 20 through 7, and 8, shall be as follows:

The term "in the case of an administrative litigation that claims the invalidity of an administrative disposition and seeks the invalidity confirmation thereof, the original

the reason why the administrative disposition is invalid shall be asserted and presented to the High Court, and postal items shall be registered.

In case of dispatch, the recipient or his family does not actually reside in the resident registration place.

Unless there are special circumstances such as damage to a move-in report, an addressee at that time;

It is reasonable to view that delivery was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, this case was examined as follows.

Each of the imposition authorities of this case on the sole basis of the evidence No. 2, which is the prior final and conclusive judgment of this case submitted at a high level.

It is not sufficient to view that both the notice of subdivision and arrears were served unlawfully, and otherwise, the certificate to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① The prior final and conclusive judgment of the instant case is the resident tax on which 1996 existed between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○○○.

It is related to the resident tax on May 13, 2001, and it was recognized that the notice of imposition such as the resident tax, etc. was not sent to the plaintiff's domicile at the time when the plaintiff was registered by registered mail, but the above imposition is not confirmed since the plaintiff was unable to move to his domicile from time to time.

It was determined that notice could not be presumed that it was legally served on the plaintiff.

② However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 7, the Plaintiff, on October 12, 199, completed the move-in report on the ○○○-○○○○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○○, ○○○, which was imposed and notified of the instant taxation on October 12, 199, and had not been relocated to his domicile for about 32 months from June 19, 2002 to ○○-dong, ○○-dong, ○○○○○, ○○, and his spouse was married to Kim○ on January 26, 200, and ○○ was born on April 21, 200.

③ After the closure of the instant business, the Plaintiff was in fact in other areas than ○○.

However, it appears that ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○○, etc. even after the time of the instant taxation disposition, etc. were mainly living in ○○○○ region for a considerable period from the time of the instant taxation disposition, and otherwise, all of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s family members were

(a) there is no evidence to deem that he did not actually reside after having completed only a move-in report at his domicile;

2. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.