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

This court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the use of "Defendant" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as "Uigu Office under the jurisdiction of the defendant", "Cheongju-si" in Article 1-b as "Defendant", and "Yiuk-gu Office under the jurisdiction of the defendant" in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination:

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the use of No. 3-Ra, E, andf in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. Whether the sale disposition is lawful

(1) Under Article 74(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act, the provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the National Tax Collection Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the disposition on default of money collectible under the former Industrial Accident Compensation Act. Under Articles 56 and 14(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, where a taxpayer is subject to a disposition on default, etc., the head of a tax office shall first request the relevant government agency or enforcement officer who has issued a disposition on default to deliver the money to the head of a tax office. Article 57 of the same Act provides that where the property to be seized is already seized by another agency, the notice of participation in attachment may be served in lieu of the request for delivery under Article 56 of the same Act. Thus, a person who intends to take a disposition on default of the property subject to a disposition on default by a disposition on default can only participate in the procedure of a disposition on default, and it shall be prohibited to make double seizure. Therefore, it is unlawful for the government agency or enforcement agency that has already attached the real property of this case to the head of a tax office.

(2) However, even if there is a defect in the sale disposition of this case, the effect of the sale disposition of this case cannot be denied in the civil procedure before denying the validity of the disposition in the revocation lawsuit against the administrative disposition, and in order for the administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, it must be objectively obvious that the defect has violated the important part of the law, and it must be objectively obvious. In determining whether the defect is significant and obvious, the purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the law should be considered as a purposeological and reasonable consideration of the specificity of the specific case itself (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu4615 delivered on July 11, 1995, etc.).

(3) We examine whether there is a grave and apparent defect in the sales disposition of this case in accordance with the above legal principle.

The purpose of Article 56 and Article 57 of the National Tax Collection Act, which is interpreted as the prohibition of double seizure, is inappropriate from the perspective of the enforcement economy to view the same property as a double seizure. Therefore, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that the tax authorities can obtain double seizure in accordance with the order prescribed by the law in the distribution procedure by taking advantage of the compulsory refund procedure already initiated by the tax authorities. If it is permitted to double seizure between national and local taxes, if the former seizure authority does not take double sale of national and local taxes for a long time, it can be used to cover most of the proceeds from the dual seizure authority's additional charges and disposition fee for arrears in accordance with the provision of Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act after the double seizure authority takes a disposition for double sale. In addition, if the proceeds from double sale are appropriated for the additional charges and disposition fee for arrears based on public charges even if there was a seizure based on taxation, it may be a problem against the principle of tax priority.

However, as seen earlier, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act that provides for the priority of seizure does not apply mutatis mutandis to industrial accident compensation insurance fees and local taxes, and Article 34 of the Local Tax Act that provides for the priority of local taxes is applied mutatis mutandis. Thus, even if the Plaintiff’s substantial office affiliated with the Defendant seizes local taxes based on the above insurance premiums and allocates local taxes, the priority of seizure or the priority of local taxes may not be avoided. On the other hand, if an agency related to public charges, which is the agency having already attached, delays the execution of local taxes, there is only a peremptory notice to sell them to the agency having already attached taxes pursuant to Article 58(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, and there is no legal device to prevent the delay of execution under the current law. Thus, if the enforcement of public charges is delayed for a long time, it is difficult to view that the above disposition has been made on the premise that the above disposition would be exceptionally invalidated, even if it actually grants priority to the agency related to public charges due to the need to appropriate the sales proceeds for additional charges, etc.

E. As to the Plaintiff’s preferential collection right

(1) Article 31 (1) of the Local Tax Act recognizes exceptions to the principle of priority of local taxes, and Article 31 (2) 1 of the same Act recognizes exceptions to the principle of priority of local taxes. It is natural to take precedence over the national or local taxes which are subject to the principle of priority of national or local taxes, but in the disposition of arrears on public charges, if a request for the issuance of national or local taxes is made, the public charges themselves are deemed to have the preferential right to collect additional dues and expenses for disposition on default, which are higher than the national or local taxes, based on the principle of priority of taxation. However, in the disposition of arrears on the additional dues and expenses for disposition on default of public charges, it is problematic whether the local government can collect additional dues or expenses for disposition on default of national or local taxes prior to the application of the principle of priority of taxation.

(2) In general, "disposition on default" under the tax law means a series of administrative procedures with the purpose of obtaining satisfaction of tax claims by the State or a local government by seizing taxpayer's property on its own. Article 34 of the Local Tax Act, which provides the priority of seizure, provides that "in case of seizure by the local government or by the disposition on default of national taxes" is limited to "collection" which is a part of the procedure for disposition on default, while Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that "disposition on default of national taxes or public charges is separately used as a separate concept from seizure and disposition on default," and Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that "in case of collection of local taxes from the amount of disposition on default of national taxes or public charges, local taxes are already conducted and sale of attached property is scheduled to be distributed with proceeds from sale, so that Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that it is difficult for an agency to directly allocate local taxes and disposition on default of national taxes by the relevant public auction system.

(3) Therefore, as long as the sale disposition of this case does not automatically become null and void as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is merely subject to seizure, and the Plaintiff cannot assert the right to preferential collection in the distribution procedure of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed without any justifiable reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without any justifiable reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Yang Tae-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)