Cheongju District Court 2008Gahap849 ( October 13, 2009)

A request for delivery of a document on the ground of the interruption of extinctive prescription shall not retroactively lose its effect even if the compulsory refund procedure, which forms the basis thereof, is revoked.

The extinctive prescription of the right to collect a taxation claim was interrupted by the defendant's request for delivery, and it has not yet been completed after the date following each closing date on the date of the closing date of the auction procedure, and the claim for delivery for the reason of interruption of the extinctive prescription has not yet been completed retroactively even if the compulsory refund procedure which forms the basis thereof is revoked.

Article 27 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 28 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2009Na533 Distribution Benefits

XX

Korea

Cheongju District Court Decision 2008Gahap849 Decided February 13, 2009

July 14, 2009

August 18, 2009

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 shall be revoked. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the court on June 20, 2008 with respect to the case of applying for a compulsory auction of real estate (No. 231,886,640) against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the court of second instance on June 20, 208, the amount of dividends of 231,886,640 and the amount of dividends of 7.239.020 shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be 8,76,681 won to the plaintiff shall be 247,902,341 won

1. Quotation of judgment of the court of first instance and matters to be judged additionally;

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that "request for delivery was made or seized claims against the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation on November 21, 201 in accordance with the procedure for default of national taxes, etc.," and "the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the tax claim of this case from December 31, 195, which is the date of payment, the right to collect the tax claim of this case from March 31, 196, which is the date of payment, shall begin to run from March 31, 1996, which is the date of payment, and from March 1, 1996, the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect the tax claim of this case from January 1, 196, to November 21, 2001," and "the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect the tax claim of this case from the 3rd court's 1 to 4th court's 14th court's th court's th 1 to 16th th th th th th 1, respectively.

Additional Determinations

The plaintiff asserts that, among the auction cases mentioned above, the interruption of prescription by the defendant's request for delivery in the Cheongju District Court 99Hu43236, among the auction cases mentioned above, the interruption of prescription by the defendant's request for delivery became retroactively lost retroactively upon the withdrawal of the application by the applicant, the claim of this case

However, a claim for delivery of a written cause of interruption of prescription under Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not retroactively lose its effect even if the compulsory refund procedure, which forms the basis of the claim, is revoked. Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

2. 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 just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.