Whether extinctive prescription of national tax collection right expires

Where an administrative litigation is instituted against a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax-related Acts, it shall undergo the procedure of pre-trial such as a request for examination or adjudgment prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes. However, since the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit without going through such pre-trial procedure is apparent in the record, the instant lawsuit is instituted

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

2016Guhap3918 Revocation of Disposition, etc. of Imposition of Capital Gains Tax

Park ○

Yancheon District Court's monthly support with respect to the area of 357m2,00 m2,000 m3,000 m3,000

The attachment registration was completed under No. 5856.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1 to 9, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul

B. Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

This registration based on a provisional registration of AA shall be null and void as a transfer registration of ownership for which any condition is not fulfilled.

For registration to be cancelled, capital gains tax was imposed on the basis of such registration of ownership transfer.

The imposition of capital gains tax shall be revoked, and resident tax shall also be imposed on capital gains tax.

shall be revoked as resident tax is imposed, and the above capital gains tax and resident tax shall be imposed.

Since the statute of limitations expires at the expiration of five years from the day after the Defendants completed the registration of seizure.

The registration of the above seizure by the defendants shall be cancelled by the completion of the statute of limitations of the disposition.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. Determination of the main defense of Defendant AA Head of the Tax Office (request for revocation of the disposition of transfer income tax)

Part)

According to Articles 56(2), 61(1), and 68(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Act on National Taxes

Where an administrative litigation is filed against a disposition under tax-related Acts, a request for examination

shall be subject to the procedure of a prior trial, such as a request for a trial. However, the plaintiff shall complete such procedure.

Since the fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought without going through B is apparent in the record, the lawsuit of this case is timely filed.

The above part of the claim, which was filed without due process of the previous trial, is unlawful.

B. Determination of the head of the Gu on the main defense of the defendant AAA in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Revocation of the disposition imposing resident tax)

Part of Claim)

According to Article 20 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, one year has passed from the date of a disposition, etc.

set forth in sub-paragraph (2), (b), (1) and (2), and (3). The whole of the statements and arguments

In full view of the purport, the head of the defendant AA on June 1, 1997 the above resident tax was determined and notified.

On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay taxes to each of the instant land in arrears.

may be recognized as having submitted a civil petition for grievance to the effect of cancelling the registration of seizure.

In light of the above facts, the disposition imposing resident tax of the head of the defendant AAA by the head of the Gu.

It is reasonable to ratification that the action of this case was reached at that time, and one year thereafter.

Since the fact that it was raised on May 11, 2016, the above part of the claim is unlawful, since it is apparent in the record.

C. Claim for cancellation of each attachment registration

ex officio, examining whether the part of the request for cancellation of the registration of seizure is legitimate, and under the Administrative Litigation Act

action seeking a performance judgment ordering an administrative agency to take a specified administrative disposition, or

administrative disposition having the same effect as the administrative agency has taken a certain administrative disposition;

A lawsuit seeking a formative judgment to be rendered directly is not allowed (Supreme Court Decision 9 September 30, 1997).

See Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3200, etc.). Of the instant lawsuits, the part seeking the cancellation of the registration of seizure is administrative.

(1) The purpose of this Act is to seek a performance judgment against the Defendants, who are the public;

As it constitutes a non-performance suit, it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

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

AA Head of the Tax Office

on 17, 2016

on October 26, 2016

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Gu office 1. Revocation of the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on March 2, 1997 by Defendant AAA head of the tax office, and the head of the tax office of Defendant AA head of the tax office revokes the imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 357 square meters (including additional tax) prior to OOO in OO-gun, and the imposition of additional tax of KRW 135 square meters prior to 135 square meters in O-gun, 135,210 in 00 district court 00 and completed on November 3, 1997 as of KRW 8531 as of KRW 140-2,450 in 140 square meters prior to the same Ri, and the head of the tax office of Defendant AAA head of the tax office revoked the imposition of additional tax of KRW 500,000 in the Plaintiff on June 16, 1998.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of an OO-gun 191 square meters, 67,041 square meters, 193-1 forest 73,981 square meters, 207 forest 207 square meters, 1,201 forest 201 square meters, 140-1, 476 square meters, 140-3, 140-3, 324 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On June 15, 1982, the Plaintiff received the ownership transfer registration of the instant land from the Seoul District Court 197, 2753, 197, 300 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff on June 3, 198, and the Plaintiff received the ownership transfer registration of the instant land from the Seoul District Court 30,000 square meters for the reason of pre-sale on June 15, 198.

D. The head of the defendant AA on June 1, 1997 determined and notified the plaintiff on June 1, 1997 the resident tax of KRW 000. The defendant AA head of the defendant AA on August 1, 1998.