The effect of seizure made even if a notice or demand for tax payment is not served;

The seizure of property caused by the failure to serve a notice or demand notice of tax payment is illegal.

Article 24(3) of the National Tax Collection Act

Attorney Lee Byung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The normal salary of the litigation performers of the Seongbuk-gu Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu367 delivered on December 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the defendant's assertion that the notice of change in the payment period of the national tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff was delivered to the non-party on July 14, 1978, as alleged by the defendant, the above non-party and the plaintiff can be recognized as having been divorced from August 25, 1976 and separated from each other. Thus, the service of the above notice of change to the non-party cannot be viewed as a lawful service to the plaintiff. Thus, in light of the records of the evidence cooking process conducted by the court below in taking the above measures, it is just in light of the review of the records, and there is no error of law or incomplete deliberation in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

With respect to the second ground:

Since the attachment of a taxpayer's property under Article 24 (3) of the National Tax Collection Act is based on the premise that the taxpayer has been notified or urged to pay a tax, it cannot be said that the requirement for the attachment under the provision has been satisfied in this case where the notice or demand of tax payment has not been served lawfully to the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles in the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)