Busan District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-21418 (O6, 2015)

The determination of arrears, notification of arrears, and pre-announcement of seizure are not subject to appeal litigation.

The determination of the amount in arrears is merely an internal act of the administrative agency, and the notification of the amount in arrears is not the first demand, and the notification of the amount in arrears is merely a notification of the idea that the pre-announcement of seizure is expected to be seized. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that it directly affects the rights, obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2015Nu20916 Action demanding the cancellation of notice of seizure

OO

O Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap21418 Decided February 6, 2015

May 8, 2015

June 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant confirms that the determination of the amount in arrears of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014 is null and void. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the notification of the amount in arrears and the pre-announcement of attachment made against the Plaintiff is null and void. The Defendant will cancel the attachment registration completed by the head of OO district court’s OOO-dong OO-dong 279-2 square meters on January 18, 2003 with respect to the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant confirms that the determination of the amount in arrears of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on May 22, 2014 is null and void. The defendant confirmed on May 23, 2014 that the notice of the amount in arrears and the notice of the pre-announcement of seizure against the plaintiff on May 23, 2014 is null and void (the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration in seizure which has been rejected in the first instance trial was appealed by the plaintiff, but excluded from the scope of the first instance trial upon withdrawal of the appeal

1. The issues of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The issues of the instant case

On December 3, 1997, on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred 000/100 of the OO-dong OO-dong 000-00 square meters and did not report and pay capital gains tax, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on December 3, 1997 that “the Plaintiff did not pay one capital gains tax (including additional tax)” on May 23, 201, and the amount in arrears is KRW 000 as of May 22, 2014, and the amount in arrears is KRW 000 as of June 13, 2014.” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

The key issue of this case is: ① the Defendant’s determination of the amount of delinquent local taxes of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on May 22, 2014; ② the notice of delinquent local taxes issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 23, 2014; ③ whether the prior notice of attachment issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 23, 2014 can be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

B. Judgment of the court of the first instance

First, on May 22, 2014, the court of first instance determined that the defendant's decision on the amount of delinquent tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on May 22, 2014 is merely an internal act of the defendant's administrative agency and cannot be viewed as changing the plaintiff's rights, obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be subject to appeal litigation.

Next, on May 23, 2014, the court of first instance determined that the defendant's notice of arrears against the plaintiff on May 23, 2014 was not the first demand under the National Tax Collection Act, and thus it cannot be deemed that it directly affects the plaintiff's rights, obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Finally, on May 23, 2014, the court of first instance judged that the defendant's prior notice of seizure against the plaintiff on May 23, 2014 was merely notification that the plaintiff would seize the plaintiff's deposit claim, benefit claim, etc. if the plaintiff did not pay the tax in arrears within a certain period, it can not be deemed that it directly affects the plaintiff's rights, obligations or legal status, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of appeal litigation.

2. The judgment of this Court and the citing the judgment of the first instance court

Although the defendant asserts that the decision of the amount in arrears, the notification of the amount in arrears, and the pre-announcement of seizure are an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation even in the trial of the party concerned, it cannot be viewed as an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation as the grounds cited by the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that judged the instant

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "No. 3774 received on April 24, 1994" in Part 9 of Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "No. 3774 received on April 28, 1994". Thus, this court's explanation on this case is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.