Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-101 ( November 28, 2014)

There is a burden of proof for a person who asserts the invalidity of an administrative disposition.

The defect existing in the preceding disposition shall not be succeeded to the subsequent disposition, unless it is a ground for invalidation, and the fact that there is an illegal ground for invalidation of the administrative disposition is insufficient, and the defect shall be significant and obvious.

Article 27 (Extinctive Prescription of Right to Collect National Taxes)

2015Nu38938 Nullification of attachment disposition

IsaA

Head of Sungbuk Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap10011 decided November 28, 2014

September 1, 2015

October 6, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

제1심 판결을 취소하고, 피고가 2011. 4. 18. 원고가 주식회사 ㅇㅇ레포츠에 대하여 가지는 주식 3,500주 및 그에 따른 권리 일체에 관하여 한 압류처분이 무효임을 확인

the court's judgment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation about the instant case is based on the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance 2. D. 2)

With respect to the second argument, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be stated, except for the second argument in writing as follows:

As such, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

(c)

2. Parts to be dried;

2) As to the second argument

Article 8 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "any document prescribed by this Act or other tax-related Acts shall be served on the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the person concerned," and that an administrative disposition shall be void automatically.

In an administrative litigation seeking confirmation of invalidity, the administrative disposition is null and void for the plaintiff.

The reason is alleged and proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3460, May 13, 2010).

The purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 5

Further, considering the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, this case’s workplace

at the time when each tax notice related to taxation is served, the Plaintiff’s share in resident registration;

just because the Plaintiff was not registered as a lawsuit, each duty payment notice related to the instant taxation disposition was issued by the Plaintiff.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that the written notice was not received, the first-party plaintiff's assertion on this different premise is also not acceptable.

① In light of the fact that the Plaintiff lent the name of business operator to the Plaintiff and worked in the instant workplace and resided in the small room, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have delegated the receipt of documents, such as a tax payment notice issued in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the instant business. ② Each tax payment notice related to the instant tax disposition seems not to have been served and returned after being served in the instant workplace. ③ In the case of Incheon District Court 2003Guhap000, Incheon District Court Decision 2003Guhap000, the fact that the tax payment notice issued in the name of the head of the Incheon District Tax Office on May 13, 2001 was not returned cannot be presumed to have been served on the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that the relevant tax payment notice was served on the Plaintiff. However, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of resident tax for the Plaintiff’s domicile tax for the year 1996 against the Plaintiff, this is a matter of delivery of 0

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified in accordance with this conclusion.

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