early 209west4267 (Law No. 10, 2010.10)

It cannot be seen as falling under ‘when seizure becomes unnecessary due to other reasons merely because it is very excessive at the time of seizure.’

Even if the owner of a parcel of land at the time of the registration of seizure was unable to pay the tax in arrears due to extreme debts, such circumstance alone does not constitute “when the seizure becomes unnecessary due to any other reason” under Article 53(1)1 of the National Tax Collection Act.

Article 53(1)1 of the National Tax Collection Act

2010Guhap45934 Revocation of revocation of application to cancel the attachment

XX Bank, Inc.

O Head of tax office

August 18, 2011

September 15, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's refusal to cancel the attachment against the plaintiff on September 24, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 18, 1998, the Defendant completed the attachment registration (hereinafter referred to as the “instant attachment registration”) with respect to the 7/10 shares (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land shares”) out of 00-0 square meters large 11410 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) owned by the Seoul XX-gu, Seoul, Food and Drug Development Co., Ltd. (the later trade name was changed to XX Industrial Development Co., Ltd., OOAD Co., Ltd., and △△&D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “P construction”).

B. XX Construction, on September 23, 1998, revised on the land of this case to the Committee on the Union of OLessees (the name of June 21, 200 was changed to the "Committee on the Union of OOT lessees"; hereinafter referred to as the "Committee on the Union of Lessees") composed of lessees of the OO building constructed on the land of this case on September 23, 1998 for the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional registration of this case").

C. On December 28, 2007, the Lessee completed the registration of transfer of the provisional registration of this case on the ground of the transfer on August 14, 2007, on the ground of the "transfer on the grounds of the "transfer on August 14, 2007."

D. The registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration of this case was completed on December 9, 2004 with respect to the land shares in this case on December 28, 2007 on the ground of "the completion of trade reservation on December 9, 2004," and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day on the ground of "trust on December 28, 2007," and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of "the trust on the same day."

E. Meanwhile, △△△ FFB paid all the national taxes in arrears before the registration of the instant attachment, but did not pay the aggregate of KRW 1,243,738,800, including comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2005 (the statutory due date, December 15, 2007), which became due after the instant provisional registration, totaling KRW 59,401,170 (additional real estate holding tax, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply), totaling KRW 893,419,710, total real estate holding tax in 2006 (the statutory due date, December 15, 2006) and KRW 1,243,738,800, including comprehensive real estate holding tax in 207 (the statutory due date, December 15, 2007).

F. On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for the cancellation of the attachment, etc. of this case with the purport that "the national taxes in arrears after the provisional registration of this case did not have effect on the national taxes in arrears, and the registration of this case constitutes a case where the necessity of attachment under Article 53 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes no longer exists." However, on September 24, 2009, the Defendant rejected the application for the cancellation of attachment on the ground that "the national taxes in arrears for which the statutory deadline comes before the registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration of this case was completed, and the pertinent taxes imposed on the land of this case are delinquent."

G. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 26, 2009, but was dismissed on September 10, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Retroactive assertion of this registration

Since a tax obligation, the statutory due date of which comes after the provisional registration of this case was completed, the attachment cannot be effective due to the retroactive effect following the principal registration, the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful.

(2) The assertion that seizure is no longer necessary

At the time of the seizure registration of this case, x construction, which is the owner of the instant land, was in serious excess of obligations and was declared bankrupt after being declared bankrupt. Therefore, the seizure registration of this case constitutes a case where the seizure of this case becomes unnecessary due to payment under Article 53(1)1 of the National Tax Collection Act and other reasons. Thus, the rejection disposition of this case is unlawful.

(b) Attached Form of relevant statutes;

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion of retroactive effect of the principal registration

In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 3 and 6, the lessee, from around May 1998 to about 1.95 billion won of the lease deposit, was organized by the Lessee for the purpose of securing the claim against the lessee for the total amount of 1.95 billion won of the lease deposit. The Lessee Committee may request the Lessee to establish provisional registration of the instant land share in order to secure the claim for the refund of the lease deposit, and recognize the fact that the provisional registration of this case was completed on September 23, 1998 by requiring the Lessee to establish provisional registration of this case on September 23, 1998. Thus, the provisional registration of this case is not a provisional registration having the effect of priority preservation, but a provisional registration for securing the claim for the refund of the lease deposit. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Lessee is without merit.

(2) As to the assertion that seizure is no longer necessary

Even though the owner of the instant land at the time of the registration of seizure was unable to pay taxes in arrears due to the extreme excess of obligations, such circumstance alone does not constitute “when the seizure becomes unnecessary due to other reasons” under Article 53(1)1 of the National Tax Collection Act, and rather, Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the effect of seizure is completed even with respect to the delinquent amount of national taxes for which the statutory due date has become due prior to the transfer of ownership of the relevant attached property.

In addition, Article 35(2) and (5) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc. imposed on the pertinent land share constitutes so-called "relevant tax" imposed on the pertinent property which takes precedence over the pertinent property at all times regardless of the date of registration of provisional security such as the provisional registration of this case, regardless of the date of registration of provisional registration of this case. Therefore, even if the statutory date has arrived after the provisional registration of this case was completed, the said comprehensive real estate holding tax, etc. should take precedence over the provisional

Therefore, 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 it is so decided as per Disposition.