[2] Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition of revocation of a disposition of revocation of a disposition of loss incurred during the period from the amendment of the Framework Act on National Taxes by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996 to the amendment of the National Tax Collection Act by Act No. 6053 of Dec. 28, 1999 (affirmative), and whether the notification is an effective requirement for the revocation of the said disposition of loss (affirmative), and the burden of proof for the fact of notification (=tax authorities)

[2] Article 86 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6053 of Dec. 28, 1999) provides that "where a taxpayer becomes aware of the existence of any other seizable property at the time of the disposition on default notwithstanding the exclusion of the grounds for extinguishment of tax liability from the grounds for extinguishment of tax liability under Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes before the amendment by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996, "where a taxpayer becomes aware of the existence of other seizable property at the time of the disposition on default, the disposition on default shall be revoked without delay and the tax liability shall be revoked in accordance with the legal provisions of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6053 of Dec. 28, 1999)." Since a ground for revocation of the disposition on default after the amendment of the National Tax Collection Act has been expanded to "when a taxpayer becomes aware of other property that can be seized in accordance with the purpose of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the legal provisions of the disposition on write-off and cancellation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as follows. Since the right to collateral security on the real estate in the name of the plaintiffs was established to secure the same claim as that of the husband of the plaintiffs, such as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been established before the right to collateral security on the same real estate, even if the right to collateral security was cancelled, the preferential repayment effect of the right to collateral security in the name of the plaintiff should be the same as that of the husband of the non-party. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the right to collateral security should be apportioned prior to the transfer income tax in the name of the plaintiff and the local tax in the name of the plaintiff, since the right to collateral security in the name of the plaintiff should become effective after the cancellation of the right to collateral security, the right to collateral security established to secure the loan claim in the name of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had already been cancelled after the establishment of the right to collateral security in order to secure the same loan claim, the court below determined that each of the above rights had already been cancelled after the registration of collateral security in the plaintiff's name.

In light of the relevant legal provisions and records, although the court below erred in its fact-finding, it is just in its conclusion to reject the plaintiffs' assertion, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or omission of judgment as to the effect of preferential payment of collateral security as otherwise alleged in

The Supreme Court Decision cited by the Plaintiffs in the appellate brief is inappropriate to invoke the instant case, since it differs from the case.

2. As to the effect of the cancellation of write-off

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax in this case against the non-party 3 of the Seocho Tax Office's non-party 3 is unlawful on the premise that the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax in this case is legitimate, since the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax in this case is invalid because the taxpayer did not notify the non-party 3 of the cancellation in writing, the court below held that the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax in this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the director of the Seocho Tax

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 86 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6053 of Dec. 28, 1999) provides that "where a taxpayer finds that there was an asset which can be seized at the time of a disposition on default notwithstanding the exclusion of the grounds for extinguishment of tax liability from the grounds for extinguishment of tax liability under Article 26 subparagraph 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes before the amendment by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 30, 1996, such disposition shall be revoked without delay, and it shall be maintained as it is, "where another asset which can be seized in accordance with the purport of the Framework Act on National Taxes after the amendment of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 5189 of Dec. 28, 1999) is expanded to "when a taxpayer becomes aware of the existence of an asset which can be seized at the time of such disposition on default, the legal grounds for cancellation of disposition on default shall be limited to 00 years after the cancellation of the disposition on default and 20 years after the amendment of the National Tax Collection Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on the premise that the burden of proof for the non-party 3 did not notify the taxpayer of the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax on the non-party 3 is not acceptable. Furthermore, according to the records (in the first instance court's inquiry report to the director of the District Tax Office), the director of the District Tax Office may know the fact that the non-party 3 did not notify the taxpayer of the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax on the non-party 3, the cancellation of the disposal of capital gains tax on the non-party 3 shall be a disposition of nullification in decision of the taxpayer's notification, and therefore, the disposition of allocation of the proceeds of the public sale

Nevertheless, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the director of Seocho District Tax Office did not notify the non-party 3 of the cancellation of the capital gains tax in this case as taxpayer, the court below's revocation was lawful, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the cancellation of the capital gains tax in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and without further determination as to the remaining arguments by the plaintiffs as to

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to the occasional amount of capital gains tax on June 1996 and occasional amount of capital gains tax on December 12, 1996, which was written off by the head of Seocho District Tax Office, shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)