Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch 2012Guhap530 ( October 20, 2013)

The interruption of prescription of an attachment is not effective, as a matter of course, without the need to obtain a new registration of attachment even the tax in arrears accrued after the

The notification of tax payment due to uncertainty of address can be deemed to have been served by public notice. On the other hand, once the registration of seizure was made, the interruption of prescription becomes effective as a matter of course without a new registration of seizure as to the delinquent tax amount incurred after the registration of seizure against the same person. Thus, the defendant's tax claim under each taxation of this case at the time of the disposition of arrears

Article 10 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 11 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2013Nu920 Revocation of disposition on default

KimA

○ Head of tax office

Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch 2012Guhap530 ( October 20, 2013)

2014.17

oly 15, 2014

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition on default against the plaintiff on September 21, 201 shall be revoked.

The reasoning for our court's explanation on this case is as follows: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited (the plaintiff actually obtained taxable income from new construction and sale of a building around 1994 and obtained approval for use at ○○ City for a shop which is subject to taxation on part of 'B house', and at least 1 new construction building (or building) which is similar to the contract for construction work around March 1997, it can be deemed that there was a transaction that can be mistaken for the defendant as subject to taxation, and there is insufficient evidence to view that there is a legitimate external defect in each taxation of this case. Moreover, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's business division around early 1998 closed its business at ○○○ City on July 30, 1998 and that the remaining business establishment was closed at ○○○○ Office on the ground that the plaintiff had no record on the part of 199 years after 199.