Refusal to cancel the attachment does not violate the principle of good faith.

The grounds for cancellation of attachment did not occur, and the response following the confirmation of the amount in arrears cannot be deemed as a public opinion statement due to the confirmation of facts, and thus does not violate the principle of good faith.

Article 53 of the National Tax Collection Act

revocation of revocation of revocation of cancellation of attachment by Suwon District Court 2017Guhap64584

BAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 26, 2017

November 14, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In August 5, 2016, BB, B, 00-00 B, B, B, 00-00 B, B,B apartment No. 000, B, 000, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 2, 2011, the Defendant seized BB, BB, 00-0 BB, 00 BB, 5B, 000 BB, and 0000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) at which registration of ownership was already made in order to collect the delinquent value-added tax, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”). (b) The Plaintiff completed registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on May 24, 2012 due to the sale on the same day.

C. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant to cancel the attachment of the instant apartment, but the Defendant refused to cancel the attachment on August 5, 2016 on the ground that the amount of taxes in arrears of theCC remains (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 6, 2016, but was dismissed on February 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 18, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Before the instant attachment disposition, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant real estate fromCC prior to the instant attachment disposition; (b) completed the move-in report; and (c)CC was notified of the details of delinquent tax amount and paid the relevant tax amount in trust by DD regional tax office at the time of the Plaintiff’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate (see, e.g., May 24, 2012); and (c) the Defendant did not release the instant attachment disposition on the ground that there is any additional delinquent tax that is not included in the above notification, it goes against the principle of trust and good faith.

3. Customs-related statutes;

Attached Table 1 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the refusal disposition of this case

A. Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the seizure under paragraph (1) shall also have effect on the delinquent amount of national taxes of which the statutory due date under Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes has arrived before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred." The purport of the above provision is only to the effect of the seizure as a matter of course without the need to obtain a new registration of seizure against the delinquent amount of taxes incurred after the registration of the seizure for the same person. If the seizure is registered once, it does not recognize any special priority on the national tax claims that have arisen after the seizure. In addition, the above provision does not have the effect of excluding the provisions of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In the event a mortgage, pledge, or lease on a deposit basis is established after the seizure, the priority between the real rights and taxes newly accrued after the seizure shall be determined according to the provisions of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the statutory due date of tax newly created (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 613Du15, Nov. 2, 2004).

B. In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's act in tax law relations, first, the tax authority must state a public opinion that is the subject of trust to the taxpayer, second, the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the legitimacy of the tax authority's expression of opinion, third, the taxpayer must trust the expression of opinion and act in what manner it is, fourth, the tax authority should make a disposition against the above expression of opinion, thereby infringing the taxpayer's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du403, Sept. 5, 2003).

C. On May 24, 2012, when the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the instant real estate, the amount of taxes in arrears ofCC which became due on the statutory date prior to the date of the registration of the transfer of ownership is KRW 0,000,000,000, and specific details are as shown in the attached Table 2. Therefore, the attachment disposition of this case also takes effect on the said amount in arrears pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as having caused the cancellation of attachment under Article 53 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50625 Decided July 26, 2012 cited by the Plaintiff, even if a new cause for the cancellation of attachment occurred without the cancellation of attachment, it is inappropriate to invoke the instant case differently from the instant case to the effect that the previous amount in arrears takes effect from the time the new amount in arrears occurred.)

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s refusal to release the instant attachment disposition on the ground that the response pursuant to the request for confirmation of amount in arrears made by the Director of the Regional Tax Office againstCC around May 2012 was an expression of public opinion, on the premise that the response was not included in the above reply, is against the principle of good faith. However, the Plaintiff’s confirmation and notification of amount in arrears does not constitute the Plaintiff’s counter-party to the above reply or the taxpayer, and it is merely a mere act that does not involve any legal effect unlike the imposition and notification of amount in arrears, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff itself constitutes a public opinion statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du13491, Jan. 12, 2012). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be deemed as having committed any act in favor of the above reply. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion further did not have justifiable reasons without examining it.

5. Conclusion

그렇다면 원고의 청구는 이유 없으므로 이를 기각하기로 ㅎ ㅏ여 주문과 같이 판결한다.