[2] In case where a claim is attached before the determination of national tax under Article 24 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the time when the right to collect the seized claim is acquired

[3] The nature of the seizure of claims where a final national tax and a final national tax are seized together with a final national tax

[4] Whether the increased amount is included in the scope of collection even if the correction was made three months after the date of seizure when the national tax to be preserved was imposed (affirmative)

[5] Whether the right to preferential payment of wage claims is excluded from the effect of seizure disposition already taken by other creditors (negative)

[2] In case of attaching claims under the attachment before the determination of national taxes under Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the State shall obtain the right to collect claims under the attachment when the national taxes are determined.

[3] If the attachment of a claim based on a disposition on default is permitted not only for the collection of the determined national tax, but also for the preservation of the determined national tax but also for the preservation of the determined national tax, it shall be deemed that the final national tax and the determined national tax are both the nature of the final and conclusive national tax attachment for the purpose of national tax assessment and the final and conclusive national tax attachment for the purpose of national tax assessment. Thus, the nature of the notification on the attachment of a claim shall not be deemed to vary on the ground that the notification on the attachment of

[4] As to the scope of collection of claims, Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the scope of the national tax subject to preservation, its additional dues and expenses for disposition on default shall be subrogated to the extent of the national tax subject to preservation, and where the increased amount is corrected after the imposition of the national tax subject to preservation, the increased amount shall be considered to be included in the scope of collection as a matter of course, and it shall not be deemed that the scope of the national tax subject to preservation shall be limited to the amount determined within the specified period, on the ground that Article 24(5) of the National Tax Collection

[5] The taxation, public charges, and preferential rights to payment of other general claims under Article 30-2 of the former Labor Standards Act (repealed by Act No. 5305, Mar. 13, 1997) are merely a case where the debtor's property is subject to compulsory execution against the debtor's property, and it shall not be deemed that it has granted the right to claim a direct payment prior to other creditors by excluding the effect of the attachment disposition already made by other creditors.

On the first ground for appeal

Under the National Tax Collection Act, a claim attachment in accordance with a disposition on default is to ensure a tax claim by prohibiting a delinquent from performing his/her obligation against a delinquent taxpayer with respect to a claim attached to the debtor. Thus, if a claim subject to attachment is not specified by the notice on attachment or the notice on attachment does not contain a clause prohibiting payment of the claim subject to attachment, it shall be null and void. However, as in this case, it cannot be deemed that the attachment of the claim is null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the notice on attachment was omitted in the taxable year, tax item, and tax amount related to the attachment, which is one of the matters stipulated in Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the above purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity requirement of notification of seizure of claims such as theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

On the second ground for appeal

In the event that a national tax is seized before the determination of national tax under Article 24(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, it is the opinion of the party member that the State obtains the right to collect claims subject to seizure when the national tax is determined (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da2886 delivered on June 24, 1994). Since there is no need to change it, the attachment of claims prior to the determination of national tax is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the attachment before the determination of national tax, on the premise that there is no right to collect claims.

On the third ground for appeal

Examining the relevant evidence by the record, the court below's fact-finding and decision on the specification and determination of the national tax to be preserved for the attachment of claims in this case are acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the attachment of a claim based on a disposition on default is permitted for the purpose of preserving national taxes, as well as for the collection of the determined national taxes, which are not only established but also established for the purpose of preserving the determined national taxes. If the attachment of a claim is conducted with the determined national taxes as well as the determined national taxes, it shall be deemed that the nature of the attachment is concurrently the same before the determined national taxes are determined for the determined national taxes, and the nature of the attachment shall not be different by stating only the purport of the attachment prior to the determined national taxes in the notice of the attachment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which is different from this, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the seizure of claims based on the disposition on default, and the argument that the income tax pointing out in the theory of lawsuit on the same premise as the judgment of the court below has already been finalized at the time of the seizure of claims

Furthermore, in relation to the scope of collection of claims of this case, Article 41(2) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the scope of collection of claims of this case shall be subrogated within the scope of the preserved national tax, its additional dues and expenses for disposition on default. Thus, where the increased amount is corrected after the national tax is imposed, the increased amount shall be considered to be included in the scope of collection as a matter of course, and it shall not be deemed that the scope of the preserved national tax shall be limited to the amount determined within the above period, as in the theory of lawsuit, unless the national tax is determined until three months after the date of the seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1305 delivered on February 27, 1996).

Meanwhile, in light of the record, it is clear that the increased tax amount, recognized by the court below, is the difference between the initial tax amount and the initial tax amount. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the court below recognized the tax amount overlapped, and as long as the additional dues imposed on the delinquent taxpayer and the final and conclusive disposition are not null and void as a matter of course, the debtor of the claim attached by the disposition on default cannot refuse the performance of his/her obligation on the ground that the additional dues were erroneously calculated.

In addition, the taxation of wage claims, public charges, and preferential rights to payment of other general claims stipulated under Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act are merely the fact that in case where a compulsory execution is conducted against an obligor's property, it may be repaid in preference to general claims from realization proceeds due to such compulsory execution, and it cannot be deemed that the right to seek direct payment is granted by excluding the validity of seizure dispositions already taken by other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da6161, Dec. 9, 1994; 95Nu2562, Jun. 13, 195). Accordingly, the defendant cannot refuse the plaintiff's claim for collection on the ground that the seizure and collection order for seized claims conducted after the seizure of the claim of this case is based on wage claims. Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)