Article 47 (2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 4673 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same applies) provides that "a seizure under paragraph (1) shall also have effect on any delinquent amount arising after the registration or enrollment of the seizure." Where a real estate, the seizure of which has been registered under the National Tax Collection Act, is transferred to a third party and the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, there is no provision on the scope of delinquent amount that has the effect of the seizure. However, in order to realize harmoniously the conflicting ideology between securing tax claims and protecting the third party acquisitor, seizure shall take effect only on the delinquent amount arising from the tax amount that the former owner's tax liability has been established until the third party completes the registration of ownership transfer, and after the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, on the delinquent amount arising from the tax amount that the former owner's tax liability becomes effective (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu18149 of Oct. 8, 1985; 194Nu19494, Dec. 194. 194.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the non-party as of April 30, 192 on the date of the non-party's closure of the business, and held that the non-party's obligation to pay the income tax and value-added tax of this case claimed by the above non-party is at least before April 30, 1992, and thus, the effect of the seizure of this case is legitimate on the grounds that the non-party's liability to pay the income tax and value-added tax of this case, the former owner of the real estate of this case, was established before May 13, 1992, on the premise that the non-party's obligation to pay the income tax and value-added tax of this case (524,635,740 won for the transfer income tax belonging to the business year of 1992, on the premise that both the plaintiff and the defendant are not effective, on the premise that the seizure of this case's remaining tax amount is not effective.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the recognition of cessation of business under the law of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the scope of validity of seizure, or incomplete deliberation.

In addition, in light of the purport of Article 24(4) and (5) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the effect of the seizure of national taxes for which the amount of tax subject to the seizure has not been determined within three months from the time of the seizure shall not extend. Thus, the court below's otherwise interpreted otherwise cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as to the judgment of the court below as it is a new assertion in the final appeal without any assertion by the court below that there was an error in law in misunderstanding legal principles and incomplete deliberation. In addition, each of the above provisions cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as to the judgment of the court below. In the case of the so-called preservation seizure prior to the confirmation of the collection claim of national taxes, which is a preservative measure to secure the collection of taxpayer's properties, and it is merely the purport that the national tax claim should be cancelled unless the national tax claim has

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)