2. The Republic of Korea (Supplementary Intervenor)

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The defendant of the Gu office shall pay to the plaintiff 58,520,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

A. On October 18, 2013, an Otax secretary attached OOO 76,036 square meters of forest land owned by Cheongong-gun, Cheongong-gun (hereinafter “the instant forest”). B pursuant to Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act, the Defendant: (a) conducted a public sale procedure on behalf of the head of OO; and (b) conducted a public sale procedure on March 12, 2014; and (c) completed the distribution procedure on July 16, 2014; (d) 58,563,820 won in the amount to be distributed on July 16, 2014; and (e) 2,066,320 won in arrears; and (e) 40,760,320 won in the order of 200,760 won in the amount to be distributed to Cheong-gun, Cheong-gun; and (e) 40,750,740,747,7400.7

D. On the other hand, on July 1, 2014, ParkCC transferred to the Plaintiff the claim that it would acquire (58,520,000 won limit) in the public auction procedure with respect to the forest of this case, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff received a claim from ParkCC for the payment of the distribution amount and the notification of the transfer was served on the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the distribution amount under the above distribution statement to the Plaintiff.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

The instant lawsuit is for the Plaintiff to seek the payment of the amount of the distribution procedure for the public sale of forest land in this case, and can be deemed as falling under a party lawsuit as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, Article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the standing to be the Defendant of a party lawsuit is the State, a public organization, and the subject of other rights, and the party lawsuit filed against a person who is not qualified to be the Defendant is illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du2765, Sept. 8, 200). Thus, it is reasonable to view whether the Defendant, the other party of the instant lawsuit, as the Plaintiff, has standing to be the subject of the right to

According to the National Tax Collection Act, if the head of a tax office deems it necessary to have expertise in the public auction of the attached property or if he/she deems it inappropriate to directly sell the attached property due to other special circumstances, he/she may have the defendant conduct the public auction on his/her behalf, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In such cases, the public auction shall be deemed to have been conducted by the head of a tax office (Article 61(5)), and even if the defendant may act on his/her behalf, distribution of the proceeds from the sale shall be deemed to have been made by the head of a tax office (Article 80(1) proviso of the National Tax Collection Act). Meanwhile, according to the provisions on the collection of national tax affairs, if there is an objection, etc. from the delinquent taxpayer and interested parties, the public auction by the defendant shall be immediately suspended (Article 170(1)), and if the defendant has failed to distribute the proceeds from the sale by proxy pursuant to the proviso to Article 80(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, he/she shall receive it from the defendant

In light of the above provisions, the defendant is a juristic person dealing with the public auction procedures on behalf of the head of the tax office under the National Tax Collection Act, but is not the subject of attribution of the proceeds from the public auction procedures. Even if the defendant becomes the subject of a provisional attribution within the scope of the distribution on the premise that the defendant acting for the head of the tax office, the defendant is not allowed to distribute the proceeds from the public auction, as long as no authority is recognized for the defendant, such as no longer allowing the defendant to act for the head of the tax office, it is difficult to regard the defendant as the subject of rights equivalent to the amount of the proceeds from the public auction for

Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is filed against a person who is not the subject of rights, and thus is not the subject of rights.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.