Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

June 9, 2010

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gadan105863 Decided February 11, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. In the first instance, the defendant primarily pays to the plaintiff 20 million won and 20% interest per annum per annum from the day following the date of the decision of this case to the day of complete payment with respect to 3,967 square meters of forest land (number omitted) 3,967 square meters of forest land in Suwon-gun, Suwon-gun. The defendant shall execute the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed on January 14, 2005 by the registration office of Suwon District Court No. 5472, which was completed on January 14, 2005.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments in accordance with the Plaintiff’s new argument at the trial court, since all of the reasons for the first instance judgment are the same as the part of the reasoning for the first instance judgment. As such, this Court shall accept it as it is by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. Article 7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “Where it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date because the document was served by registered mail, but it was returned because the addressee was absent,” the Plaintiff asserts that the service of the second taxpayer’s designated notice by public notice to the Plaintiff by public notice is unlawful as it does not seem difficult to serve the document by public notice within the due date.

In a lawsuit seeking for the registration of ownership transfer made through the public auction following the disposition on default and the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the remaining ownership transfer or the registration of cancellation of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, the burden of proving that a tax payment notice has not been served or is unlawful is the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da1260, Jun. 1, 2001). In this case, the conjunctive Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer and sent the notice of payment to the Plaintiff by registered mail, but the said notice was returned, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the service by mail was unlawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the registration of seizure on May 12, 2004 by the preliminary defendant on the portion of 1/5 shares of 3,967 square meters of forest land in the Yeong-gun of Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the plaintiff owned by the plaintiff should be cancelled by paying all the taxes in arrears imposed upon the plaintiff on October 5, 2004, when operating the Sejong EEC, but it is erroneous for the preliminary defendant to convert the above registration to the seizure registration of the tax in arrears to be paid as an oligopolistic shareholder of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's oligopolistic shareholder.

The attachment of real estate pursuant to Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act shall also have the effect on the delinquent amount arising after the registration was made. Accordingly, the conjunctive defendant designated the plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the delinquent amount of the e-mail Co., Ltd. on September 22, 2004. The plaintiff paid the delinquent amount imposed on the plaintiff on the plaintiff in the operation of NAEC on October 5, 2005 is the following facts. Thus, the circumstance that the plaintiff paid part of the delinquent amount imposed on the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the reason to cancel the above attachment registration to the preliminary defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the preliminary defendant used the attachment registration to be cancelled is without merit.

C. Article 7-2 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “if it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date because the document was served by registered mail but was returned due to the absence of the recipient, the document shall be served by the due date for payment,” and Article 7-2 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that “if it is deemed difficult to serve a document by the due date because a tax official visited a taxpayer two or more times to deliver the document, but the absence of the recipient is confirmed,” the documents shall also be served by public notice. Thus, the conjunctive Defendant asserts that even if a notice of payment was returned to the Plaintiff by registered mail, the preliminary Defendant is obliged to re-delivery the Plaintiff’s domicile through the comparison with the resident registration card, etc., or to serve

On the other hand, the above Enforcement Decree provides that the requirements of service by public notice shall be equivalent to those of subparagraphs 1 and 2, and if only one of subparagraphs 1 and 2 is met, service by public notice may be conducted. It is difficult to view that the documents served by public notice are returned to the conjunctive defendant as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is a good faith or legal obligation to serve again or to serve again (in this case, the conjunctive defendant served public notice in accordance with the requirements of service by public notice as stipulated in subparagraph 1, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that such service by public notice is unlawful). The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Sung-soo (Presiding Judge)