[2] Where the Korea Assets Management Corporation has sold any attached property at a public auction, the eligibility of the defendant in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the public auction

[3] The validity of the disposition of the public auction (effective) where a public auction notification of the attached property is not notified to the delinquent taxpayer

[2] An agency for a public auction by the Korea Assets Management Corporation shall be deemed to be the delegation of the authority of a director of a tax office for a public auction. Accordingly, the Korea Assets Management Corporation shall, in the event that the Korea Assets Management Corporation has conducted a public auction with the delegation of the authority of a director of a tax office, sell the seized property by the entrustment of the authority for a public auction, and in an appeal to revoke or nullify the disposal of the public auction, the Korea Assets Management Corporation

[3] Even if the notice of a public auction of the attached property is given to the delinquent taxpayer at the same time as the public auction is given, such notice is not a requirement of the public auction but merely informing the delinquent taxpayer of the fact of the public auction in a position similar to the execution creditor under the Compulsory Execution Act. Thus, even if the public auction is given without such notice, it cannot be deemed that the public auction disposition is void automatically.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff submitted a written claim to the director of Daegu Regional Tax Office on March 23, 1994 to the effect that the plaintiff raised an objection against the rejection ruling, and determined that the requirements for the transfer of the appeal in this case were satisfied, since the Daegu Regional Tax Office rejected the written request for examination under the Framework Act on National Taxes, although the written request for examination

However, according to Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an administrative litigation seeking its revocation cannot be filed, in principle, without undergoing all the two-stage pre-trial procedures, such as a request for examination and a request for trial under the same Act, even though the request for examination is lawful, if it is rejected due to mistake of illegality, it shall not be possible to immediately file a lawsuit after going through a request for judgment, which is next stage. In light of the records, it is clear that the plaintiff did not file a request for judgment within the prescribed period under the same Act. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is instituted without legitimate pre-trial procedure, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful and its defect cannot be corrected. However, the judgment of the court below on the merits is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the pre-trial procedure. There is a ground to point this out.

2. Therefore, since the judgment of the court below is reversed and the facts established by the court below are sufficient to render a judgment directly to the members of the party, it shall be decided in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 407 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act. For the reasons mentioned above, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed for the above reasons and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing plaintiff

3. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as follows, and thus, the judgment on the remaining grounds of appeal is added to point out it.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

An agency for a public auction by the Korea Assets Management Corporation shall be deemed to be the delegation of the authority for a public auction by the head of a tax office. Accordingly, since the Korea Assets Management Corporation sells a seized property with the delegation of the authority for a public auction, in the event that the Korea Assets Management Corporation has conducted a public auction, the Korea Assets Management Corporation which actually conducted a public auction shall be the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1933 delivered on October 13, 1989) and the head of a tax office, the delegating authority, shall be deemed to have no qualification for the defendant.

Therefore, the court below should have exercised the right to request the plaintiff to correct the defendant as the Korea Assets Management Corporation, the disposition agency, and should have proceeded with the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu1032, Jan. 12, 1990). There is a reason to point this out.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

Even if the notice of the public auction of the attached property is given to the delinquent taxpayer at the same time as the notice of the public auction, such notice is not a requirement of the public auction, but merely informing the delinquent taxpayer of the fact of the public auction in a position similar to that of the execution creditor under the Compulsory Execution Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the public auction disposition is null and void, even if the State made the public auction disposition without the notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 74Nu96, May 28, 1974; 70Nu161, Feb. 23, 1971; 66Da1303, Sept. 27, 1966). This part of the judgment of the court below that the public auction disposition of this case was made without a legitimate notice of the public auction against the delinquent taxpayer is erroneous. This part of the judgment of the court below that this point is null and void.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)