It is not a disposition subject to a lawsuit that presents a simple civil petition petition or an individual opinion of a public official.

A disposition subject to an administrative litigation means the exercise of public authority or the refusal thereof as a law enforcement on specific facts, and it is not a disposition merely a simple civil petition reply or a presentation of the opinion of a public official.

Security for collection deferment under Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 18 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Guhap50100 Nullification of a disposition of national tax assessment

Park Z;

YThe director of the tax office

June 27, 2017

August 22, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

On June 15, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant’s refusal of registration of cancellation of registration of establishment of a neighboring establishment on the portion of 1,380 square meters of 12X-X 1,380 square meters, AABB-GuCC-dong 12X 1,380 square meters and 106,220 square meters of capital gains is null and void.

1. Case history

A. The Defendant: (a) owned DDDD on the ground of the delinquency of national taxes of DDD (hereinafter referred to as “DDDD”); (b) disposed of the attachment on August 13, 2013 and March 6, 2014 on the instant land and the instant building on March 7, 2014 at the Defendant’s request, and registered the attachment of the instant land and the instant building on August 14, 2013, and March 7, 2014.

B. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building 202 and the instant land from DDD, and entered into a contract with DD on the assumption that the Plaintiff assumes the obligation to prevent the establishment of a mortgage and the obligation to obtain the attachment registration of the instant real estate completed in each of the instant real estate, and received the registration of ownership transfer from DD on the same day.

C. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff, Nonparty GG, and the Defendant entered into a security agreement for tax payment with the instant building No. 201 and the instant building No. 301, the ownership of Nonparty GG, offered as security for national tax liability of DDD. On May 30, 2014, the Defendant entered into a security agreement for tax payment with respect to each of the instant real estate on which the above security for tax payment was based on a contract for the provision of security for tax payment to the Defendant. On May 30, 2014, the Defendant suspended the disposition for arrears regarding DD’s national tax amount until June 30, 2014.

D. On August 20, 2014 and April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 207,444,040, out of the amount of national tax in arrears of DDD, to the Defendant. On August 27, 2014, the Defendant cancelled the registration of the attachment on subparagraph 202 of the instant building on August 27, 2014 and the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage on April 30, 2015, respectively.

E. On September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the Republic of Korea seeking the cancellation of the registration of the seizure of the instant land and the registration of the establishment of the creation of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed pursuant to the AA District Court BB branch 2015Gahap101. However, on April 20, 2016, the said court dismissed the part of the claim for cancellation of the seizure registration of the instant land on the ground that it cannot be claimed for cancellation of the seizure registration due to a general civil lawsuit against April 20, 2016. On the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage as to the instant building 201, the Plaintiff declared that the Republic of Korea paid delinquent tax from the Plaintiff to the Republic of Korea, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 17, 2016.

F. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal to the effect that the omission of the Defendant’s failure to release the seizure of the instant land was illegal, but was dismissed on August 8, 2016.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

ex officio, this paper examines whether a disposition subject to cancellation exists in the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity by asserting that the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s claim for cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant land. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, as the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s employees and demanded cancellation of the right to collateral, the Plaintiff only stated that the Defendant’s employees were entitled to cancel the right to collateral, only if DDD should additionally pay national taxes in arrears.

However, a disposition subject to an administrative litigation refers to "the exercise or refusal of public authority as a law enforcement of a specific fact", and the content of the plaintiff's assertion is merely a simple civil petition reply or an individual opinion, and it cannot be said that it is subject to an appeal litigation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.