Even if the cancellation of the registration of seizure is refused, it is not subject to litigation.

Even if the request for cancellation of the registration of seizure is rejected, since the lawsuit for fulfillment of obligations or the lawsuit for confirmation of obligations under the current Administrative Litigation Act is not recognized, it is not possible to seek cancellation of the registration of seizure even if it is sought for cancellation of the disposition of refusal after the second application for the seizure under the National Tax Number Act.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

피고는 원고 김☄☄에게 양산시 하북면 ♈♈리 570-15 도로 63㎡에 관하여 울산지방 법원 양산등기소 2000. 5. 31. 접수 제19934호 및 2000. 8. 21. 접수 제32239호로 마친 각 압류등기를 말소하고, 원고 김▼▼에게 양산시 하북면 ☆☆리 60 대영맨션 제1동 제5층 제512호 철근콘크리트조 81.72㎡에 관하여 울산지방법원 양산등기소 1999. 11. 13. 접수 제36885호로 마친 압류등기를 말소하라. (원고들은 소장에서 위 ♈♈리 570-15에 대한 2000. 5. 31. 접수 '제199345호' 및 '2000. 8. 31.' 접수 압류등기의 말소를 구하나 이는 각 '제19934호'와 '2000. 8. 21.'의 오기로 보이고, 위 ☆☆리 60 대영 맨션 제1동 제5층 제512호에 판하여 '1990. 11. 13.' 접수된 압류등기의 말소를 구하나 이는 '1999. 11. 13.'의 오기임이 명백하다)

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or as a whole by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including each number), and the whole purport of pleadings:

가. 피고는 원고 김☄☄ 소유의 양산시 하북면 ♈♈리 570-15 도로 63㎡에 관하여 원고 김☄☄에 대한 2000. 5. 26. 국세징수법에 의한 압류처분을 원인으로 하여 울산지 방법원 양산등기소 2000. 5. 31. 접수 제19934호로, 2000. 8. 3. 압류처분을 원인으로 하여 같은 등기소 2000. 8. 21. 접수 제32239호로 각 압류등기를 마쳤다.

나. 피고는 원고 김▼▼ 소유의 양산시 하북면 ☆☆리 60 **맨션 제1동 제5층 제 512호에 관하여 원고 김▼▼에 대한 1999. 11. 11. 국세징수법에 의한 압류처분을 원인으로 하여 같은 등기소 1999. 11. 13. 접수 제36885호로 압류등기를 마쳤다.

다.피고는원고김☄☄의종합소득세,부가가치세,양도소득세등의체납액157,317,540원에대하여2000. 5. 30.부터2004. 11. 26.까지12회에걸쳐모두결손처분을하였고,원고검경수의체납액98,819,760원에대하여2000. 7. 14.부터2002. 6. 25.까지16회에걸쳐모두결손처분을하였다.

2. Whether the litigation of this case is legal; and

A. The plaintiffs' assertion and the defendant's main defense

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Since no follow-up measures are taken after each of the above seizure dispositions against the plaintiffs, the right to collect national taxes against the plaintiffs was extinguished, and since the right to collect national taxes has ceased to exist, each of the above seizure registrations that make the right to collect national taxes against the plaintiffs as preserved right should also be cancelled.

(2) The defendant's main defense

The plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it was filed without going through an administrative appeal under Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes after the defendant's respective seizure disposition against the plaintiffs.

B. Determination

(1) On the other hand, the plaintiffs sought the cancellation of each of the above seizure registration due to the extinction of national tax quota rights, not seeking the cancellation of the above seizure disposition itself against the defendant's plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant's assertion based on the premise that the plaintiffs seek the cancellation of the seizure disposition against the defendant is without merit.

(2) Furthermore, Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the statute of limitations shall expire if the State’s right to collect national taxes is not exercised for five years from the time it can be exercised, and Article 28(1) of the same Act provides that the statute of limitations shall cease to exist for the following reasons. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Article 26 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes prior to the amendment as amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996 provides that the time when the disposition of deficits was made shall be excluded from the cause of extinction of liability for tax payment due to the above amendment, and Article 86(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the disposition of deficits shall be revoked without delay and the statute of limitations shall expire if other property which can be seized after the disposition of deficits is made. Thus, the disposition of deficits cannot be seen as effective as a disposition of deficits under Article 28(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if the statute of limitations has expired as to the above disposition of limitations.

In addition, even if the defendant rejected the plaintiffs' request for cancellation of each of the above registrations of seizure on the grounds that the right to collect national taxes has not been extinguished, it is not recognized as a lawsuit for fulfillment of obligations or a lawsuit for confirmation of obligations under the current Administrative Litigation Act. Therefore, even if the plaintiffs seek cancellation of the disposition of refusal after filing a second application for the seizure against the defendant under the National Tax Number Act, it is not possible to directly seek cancellation of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.