(b) Where the registration of ownership transfer has been made because the real estate registered for seizure under the National Tax Collection Act is transferred to a third party, the scope of the tax amount on such seizure; and

C. Whether national taxes, etc. whose payment deadline has not yet arrived as of the date of distribution of the sale price, etc. of attached property constitute national taxes, etc. related to attachment under Article 81(1) of the National Tax Collection Act

(b) If a real estate registered on the attachment under the National Tax Collection Act has been transferred to a third party and the registration of ownership transfer has been made, the attachment shall only be effective against the delinquent amount arising out of the amount of tax established by the former owner until the time the attachment is made, and it shall not extend to the delinquent amount arising out of the amount of tax established by the former owner

(c) National taxes, etc., the payment deadline of which has not yet arrived as of the date of distribution of sale price, etc. of attached property under the National Tax Collection Act shall not fall under the national taxes, etc. related to the attachment under Article

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the payment period of each national tax, which became the object of the instant allocation disposition, was after August 1, 198 when the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed in the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant attached real estate, but the court below asserted that the payment period of the above tax was 12,685,060 won (2,417,970 won, which is part of it, was allotted to the non-party who requested delivery on March 31, 1989 by the head of Yeongdeungpopo Tax Office at the fourth order. However, it was not clear whether it is value-added tax for the second half of 1987 or value-added tax for the second time of 1988) and there was no material about it even according to the records. However, the defendant asserted that the payment period of the above tax was July 15, 1988.

If the payment period of the national tax claimed above is the defendant's assertion, it is the time prior to the date of the registration of the plaintiff's creation of a mortgage, and the distribution of the public auction proceeds for that portion is followed by the decision of the Constitutional Court of September 3, 1990 that "one year from its unconstitutional" under Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes of the Constitutional Court of September 3, 1990. Thus, the above delinquent national tax has priority over the plaintiff's mortgage claims, and thus the above delinquent national tax should be legitimate. Thus, the court below should have urged the defendant to prove the above payment period and clearly stated it. However, the court below's decision that the payment period of each national tax, which became the object of the disposition of the distribution of this case, is recognized as both after the registration date of the plaintiff's creation of a mortgage, was recognized without any evidence, or it has reached the judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court is not only the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind, but also the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind, or the court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind, and the case in which the request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind is not made, but also the case in which the law or the provisions

In this case, the plaintiff did not separately request the proposal of unconstitutionality regarding Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, but the above provision of the law is clear in the record that the court is pending on the premise of the judgment in this case, and thus, the effect of the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality as to the above provision of the above provision

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the decision of unconstitutionality made by the Constitutional Court on the part of Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is subject to preferential distribution of delinquent national taxes due to the due date for payment prior to the establishment of mortgage among the national taxes which affect the seizure in this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of retroactive effect of the decision of unconstitutionality, and therefore there is no reason to argue.

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

If a real estate registered as a seizure under the National Tax Collection Act has been transferred to a third party and the registration of ownership transfer has been made, the seizure shall take effect only on the delinquent amount arising from the tax amount established by the former owner until the time of the transfer, and it shall not take effect on the delinquent amount arising from the tax amount established by the former owner after the registration of the seizure was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu181, Oct. 8, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu190, Dec. 8, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12080, Jun. 13, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 88Nu12080, Apr. 27, 1989). The judgment of the court below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the above.

4. We examine the fourth ground for appeal.

National taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears related to the seizure under the National Tax Collection Act shall be subject to a distribution of the proceeds from the sale of attached property based on the disposition for arrears (Articles 81(1)1 and 80 of the National Tax Collection Act), and dispositions for arrears shall be terminated by preparing a distribution statement (Article 83(2) of the same Act), and the head of a tax office may collect taxes before the payment period if there are specific grounds, such as the disposition for arrears is proceeding with the taxpayer (Article 14(1) of the same Act). In such cases, if a notice of payment is given or a notice of payment has already been given, he/she shall notify the taxpayer of the change of the payment period (Article 14(2) of the same Act). If the requirements for collection are met before the payment period, the payment period notified in accordance with the collection procedures prior to the seizure of the taxpayer’s property shall not be deemed national taxes related to the seizure as mentioned above (Article 24(1)2 of the same Act).

Therefore, the court below held that the disposition of distributing the national tax, etc. was illegal on May 10 of the same year after the due date for payment of national tax imposed by the defendant as of April 27, 1989, which was the object of the distribution disposition of this case, was limited to the delinquent amount already occurred at the time of the distribution, and the payment period was not due at the time of distribution, and the payment period was not due after the due date for payment of the national tax imposed by the defendant as of April 27, 199, and the payment period was changed under Article 14 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act has not

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below that revoked the distribution order 4, the distribution order among the distribution disposition taken by the defendant on May 4, 1989, and the part that revoked the distribution amount of the distributed amount to the distributing State (Yeungpo Tax Office), 2,417,970 won, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and this part of the costs of appeal is assessed against the defendant who

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)