(영문) 서울고법 1987. 1. 14. 선고 86나2596 제11민사부판결 : 상고[부당이득금반환청구사건][하집1987민(1),18]
The right to collect medical insurance premiums and priority of claims over mortgage;
The order of priority in the collection of medical insurance premiums paid shall take precedence over claims secured by the creation of mortgages before the period of less than one year from the due date of payment of insurance premiums, like national taxes, local taxes or national taxes.
Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 2 of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 55 and 56 of the Medical Insurance Act
Korea Exchange Bank
Korea Maritime Medical Insurance Association
Seoul Central District Court (85 Gohap6143) in the first instance trial
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 6,300,000 won and the amount of 5% per annum from July 29, 1985 to the service date of a duplicate soar, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The court below's testimony: Gap evidence 1 (No. 1), Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-4, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 6-3 (Attachment Report), Gap evidence 6-4 (Attachment Report), Eul evidence 6-4 (Attachment Report), 6-6-5 (Attachment Report), Gap evidence 6-6-6 (Attachment Report), 6-12 (Attachment Notification), Gap evidence 6-12, 6-15 (Attachment Notification), 6-15 (Sale of Property), 6-21 (Sale of Property), 60-21 (Attachment No. 168) and the plaintiff's testimony as to the above 60-6-6 (Attachment Report), 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 60-7, 60-7, 60-7, 21-18, 16-4, and 5-7.
In accordance with the above loan agreement with the non-party company, when the defendant seized the automobile, the non-party company lost the benefit of the term of the above loan and reached the due date. Therefore, even in the distribution of the purchase price for public sale, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff was prior to the defendant, the defendant was entitled to the full distribution of the above amount of KRW 6,300,000 in preference to the plaintiff's claim, and sought a return of the above amount of KRW 6,300,000 as unjust enrichment to the defendant.
However, according to Article 56 of the Medical Insurance Act, the order of collection of insurance premiums shall be the following national and local taxes. According to Article 55 (3) of the same Act, the insurer may collect insurance premiums, etc. from a person who fails to pay it by the due date after obtaining approval from the Minister of Health and Welfare. According to Article 2 of the National Tax Collection Act which provides for the procedure of disposition on default, etc., the provisions of this Act shall apply to the matters prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes or other tax laws, and Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure of disposition on default. Thus, in selling property registered or registered for the establishment of a right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge or mortgage within one year from the due date, if national taxes or additional dues are collected by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge or mortgage, and in light of the purport of the above provision, medical insurance premiums shall take precedence over the right of security before the due date of payment on a national tax and local taxes after the due date of payment or national taxes.
Therefore, the payment deadline of the instant medical insurance premium against the defendant of the non-party company is between February 10, 1985 and April 10 of the same year, such as the statement in the amount of medical insurance premium in attached Form, and the fact that the date of registration of the establishment of mortgage ( October 18, 1984) on the plaintiff's automobile of this case is less than one year from the payment deadline of each of the above insurance premium, is apparent in fact, and it is obvious that it is less than one year from the above payment deadline of each insurance premium
Therefore, since the defendant's preferential allocation of the plaintiff's claims concerning the purchase price of automobile in this case is based on the priority of medical insurance premiums recognized under the law, the plaintiff's claim of this case that the defendant received the above money without any legal ground and sought the return of the money shall be dismissed without any justifiable ground. Thus, the judgment below is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed with this conclusion and it is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's expense.
Judges Lee Jae-joon (Presiding Judge)