[2] Where a purchaser of the auction procedure pays the purchase price after the payment of national taxes in arrears, whether the payment of the purchase price constitutes a payment of purchase price under Article 77(1) of the National Tax Collection Act (negative), and whether the decision of sale should be revoked in this case (affirmative)

[2] Even if the purchaser of the auction procedure pays all the purchase price after the delinquent taxpayer paid national taxes in arrears, it is reasonable to view that it does not constitute a payment of the purchase price under Article 77(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, which is the payment of the purchase price for the real estate that is to be cancelled and the decision of sale is to be cancelled. If the delinquent taxpayer does not pay the purchase price before the purchaser pays the purchase price under the public auction procedure, the delinquent taxpayer shall pay all the delinquent national taxes, etc. before he pays the purchase price; a request for review or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a revocation of the decision of sale; and a request for suspension or suspension after filing an application for suspension of the validity of the above decision of sale; and a decision of suspension of the purchase price cannot be paid by the purchaser; therefore, there is no way to prevent the purchaser from paying the purchase price and from losing the ownership of the property subject to the public auction. Accordingly, if the purchaser pays the purchase price in full

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In April 200, the Defendant did not pay KRW 54,790,930 in total of seven national taxes other than the occasional gift tax on April 1, 2000, and on October 11, 2000, the Defendant seized 316-6 large scale 590 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) in Yangju-gun-si, Yangju-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, which was owned by Kim Yong-do, and attached the instant land to a public auction after completing the seizure and entry registration on the relevant land on the 16th day of the same month.

On August 31, 2001, the date of public sale of the above real estate, the Plaintiff responded to the bid of the above real estate, and the Defendant determined the Plaintiff as the successful bidder. On September 6, 2001, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice of decision on the sale as of October 5, 2001, which was 250,000 won, and the purchase price payment deadline.

However, on September 19, 2001, before the payment deadline for the above Kim Yong-dong, the delinquent Kim Yong-sung paid all national taxes, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default (hereinafter referred to as "national taxes, etc.") to the defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff paid the purchase price of the above real estate to the defendant on September 26, 2001.

According to the delinquent taxpayer's payment of the delinquent tax amount, the Defendant's registration of entry into the seizure of the instant real estate was cancelled on October 12, 2001. Meanwhile, the above Kim Yong-dong around October 8, 2001 sold the instant real estate to Kim Byung-kick, and the above Kim Byung-kick only completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 9, 2001.

In addition, on August 31, 2001, the above Kim Yong-sung requested the cancellation of the above sale decision against the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant paid national taxes in arrears to the defendant, etc., but the defendant did not comply with it, and thus, requested the National Tax Tribunal to revoke the above sale decision around February 2002. Accordingly, the National Tax Tribunal accepted the above sale decision on September 26, 2002. Accordingly, the defendant revoked the sale decision against the plaintiff on October 11, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1 (Certified Copy), 2 (Receipt), 3 (Notice of Decision to Sell), 6 ( Original Copy of Decision to Sell), 7 (Notice of Revocation of Decision to Sell), the entire purport of the pleading.

The legality of the instant disposition

Opinions of the Parties

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received ownership of the instant real estate in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act, as the Plaintiff paid the purchase price in accordance with the notification of the decision on sale from the Defendant, and that it does not guarantee the certainty of acquiring real estate through the public sale procedure if the Plaintiff did not fully pay the purchase price and acquire ownership, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s revocation of the decision on sale against the Plaintiff is unlawful, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the decision on sale should be revoked if the Plaintiff paid all the national taxes in arrears before paying the purchase price, etc.

Relevant statutes

According to Article 77(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, the purchaser of the pertinent real estate shall acquire the property at the time of paying the purchase price. However, if the procedure for the public sale of the instant real estate and the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6805 of Dec. 26, 2002), if the delinquent taxpayer completely pays national taxes before the commencement of the public sale procedure, the public sale shall be suspended (Article 71(1) of the amended Act provides that the public sale shall be suspended if the delinquent taxpayer completely pays national taxes before the notice of the determination of the sale; the amended current Act provides that the public sale shall be suspended if the purchaser completely pays national taxes before the date of the public sale before the date of the public sale, the cancellation of the determination of the public sale shall be announced at the time of cancelling the sale (Article 69 of the amended Act; Articles 78(1) and 76 of the Act provides that if the purchaser fails to pay the purchase price before the cancellation of the determination of the sale without the purchaser’s consent to the sale.

Maz.

However, according to the above National Tax Collection Act, when a delinquent taxpayer pays national taxes, etc. and makes it unnecessary to seize such taxes, the head of a tax office must release the delinquent taxpayer from the attachment (Article 53(1)1, and the current law also stipulate the payment of national taxes, etc. before and after the date of the public sale as one of the grounds for cancellation of attachment (see current law, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6746, Nov. 27, 2001). In full view of the following: (a) the purchaser fails to obtain ownership of the property before and after the date of the public sale decision; and (b) the need to protect the delinquent taxpayer’s ownership in full, more than the benefit of the purchaser who trusted the decision to sell the property until the purchaser pays the purchase price, the head of a tax office should cancel the decision to sell the property subject to public sale (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6746, Nov. 27, 2001).

In addition, even if the purchaser in the procedure of public auction paid the purchase price in full after the delinquent taxpayer paid the national taxes in arrears, it is considered that the attachment is cancelled and the purchase price for the real estate to be cancelled does not fall under the payment of the purchase price under Article 77(1) of the National Tax Collection Act. As seen earlier, if the delinquent taxpayer completely pays national taxes, etc., the decision of sale should be cancelled if the delinquent taxpayer pays the purchase price in full (if not, the delinquent taxpayer shall pay the national taxes in arrears before the purchaser pays the purchase price under the procedure of public auction, and the delinquent taxpayer shall pay all the delinquent national taxes, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and shall not be able to prevent the purchaser from paying the purchase price after receiving a request for review or a request for cancellation of the decision of sale, and after receiving a request for suspension of validity of the above decision of sale, there is no way to prevent the purchaser from paying the purchase price and the loss of ownership of the property subject to such decision). Therefore, even if the purchaser in the procedure of public auction pays the purchase price thereafter, the head of tax office shall revoke the decision of the sale

In such a case, the plaintiff's assertion that the certainty of the public auction procedure is not guaranteed is no longer acceptable in light of the above fact that it is more necessary to protect the ownership of the delinquent taxpayer in full than the purchaser's interest trust in the sale decision.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition to cancel the sale of this case is unlawful is without merit.

Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is rejected and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han River-ho (Presiding Judge)