There is the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription even if there is no claim subject to seizure or has been extinguished.

Since the extinctive prescription system is based on the purport that a locked person cannot be protected on his right, and even if there is no claim subject to seizure or has been extinguished, the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription should be recognized.

Article 28 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012 Mada70193 Return of Fraudulent Gains

AAA Construction Corporation

Korea

February 6, 2013

February 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant has the taxation rights as specified in the following table against the plaintiff.

(Omission of Details of Tax Claims)

B. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s 22 BBB association’s investment shares 22 accounts, and requested the Korea Asset Management Corporation to conduct a public auction on August 1, 2012.

C. The Korea Asset Management Corporation sold the notice of public auction on August 8, 2012, and sold 22 investment shares of the Plaintiff on October 25, 2012, the sales proceeds of KRW 000 on October 29, 2012, and distributed KRW 000 among KRW 000 on November 27, 2012 as expenses for disposition on default, and KRW 000 to the Suwon Tax Office (the public auction procedure in this case is referred to as the public auction procedure).

[Based on Recognition] Evidence A 2, Evidence B 4, and fact-finding with respect to Korea Asset Management Corporation

2. Judgment on the issue

A. Whether the defendant's claim has expired by prescription

1) Interruption of prescription due to attachment

In accordance with Article 27(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, national tax claims were not exercised for five years, and the period of extinctive prescription has been completed based on the claims extinguished by the prescription, and the defendant has to return the money received in the public sale to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. Even if the plaintiff's seizure of the plaintiff's BB union investment bonds does not have the effect of interrupting prescription, according to each of the descriptions in Eul 6, 8, 9, and 10 evidence, and the defendant's claims against the plaintiffCC Construction Co., Ltd. on March 17, 2005, and the seizure of each claim against the plaintiff's DD Development Co., Ltd, EE Co., Ltd, FF Co., Ltd, and Gyeonggi-do Construction Co., Ltd., and the defendant's claims are suspended by the extinctive prescription.

2) Effect of attachment

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has expired since its business partners did not have the actual obligation to pay to the plaintiff on October 2005. Article 28 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, "the tax payment notice, urging or demand for payment, or request for delivery," provides that "the attachment" means that a tax official initiates the procedures for the seizure of taxpayer's property pursuant to Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act, and even if the tax official searched the delinquent taxpayer's house, warehouse, or other places, but did not carry out the seizure and prepared the search certificate, the statute of limitations has the effect of interrupting prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da12419, Aug. 21, 2001; Supreme Court Decision 200Da12419, Apr. 1, 2001).

(iii) compliance with the procedures of seizure;

Finally, when the plaintiff and the seizure are carried out, the approval of the director of a regional tax office should be granted pursuant to Article 24(3) and (4) of the National Tax Collection Act, and the notification to the taxpayer in writing should be recognized, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the period of prescription of the defendant's claim has expired since the seizure has not been effective. According to the above evidence, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not find the documents notified to the plaintiff after the preservation period of the relevant documents, is acceptable, and the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was lawfully notified. Furthermore, according to the National Tax Collection Act, where the approval of the seizure of the director of a regional tax office is required, the taxpayer's property is seized before the due date for the collection period, and this case is seized to preserve the tax claim that the plaintiff has not paid even after the due date, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion on this part.

(b) Whether the procedure for a public auction is illegal;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The subject of attachment by the Defendant is 22 units of investment certificates or the Plaintiff already filed an application for acquisition of investment shares on November 30, 2010, and the Plaintiff’s claim against BB union was converted into the acquisition amount of investment shares, and the attachment is not effective, and since the witness Parkggg, which is the president Parkgg of the BB union among the Plaintiff’s investment certificates, was not held at the time of issuance, the amount distributed to the Defendant is not a normal investment certificate, and thus, the amount distributed to the Defendant shall be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2) Determination

First, the Plaintiff itself acknowledges that there are 22 investment certificates to the mutual aid association, and the name of its representative among the securities issued by the BB association is not a person who had been employed at the time of the public sale, and the Defendant’s claims or obligations, and there are any defects in the public sale process of this case. According to the results of the fact inquiry into the BB association, the Defendant seized the entire stocks and all rights held by the BB association on May 15, 2012 (the Plaintiff’s claim for acquisition of investment shares was seized), and the BB association notified the Plaintiff of the attachment on May 29, 2012, and the Defendant requested delivery of the pledged article to the BB association on June 5, 2012, and received the Plaintiff’s investment certificates on June 15, 2012, and the fact that the public sale procedure of this case was carried out after the completion of the public sale procedure of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the public sale procedure of this case is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment of 000 won and damages for delay as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is dismissed as it is without merit.