[2] Where the provisions of the Local Tax Act on the standard point at which claims secured by claims, mortgages, etc. were amended at the time of distribution of the proceeds of public sale, but the standard point at which the provisions of the former Local Tax Act had already arrived before the amendment (=the provisions before the amendment)

[3] Whether the priority relationship between claims secured by additional dues and mortgages under the former Local Tax Act should be determined separately from the priority relationship of principal tax (affirmative)

[2] The base point at which priority relationship between claims secured by local tax claims and mortgage under the Local Tax Act is established shall be the time when the secured party can confirm the existence and scope of tax claims at the time of harmonization between the public interest that recognizes priority of taxation and the protection of the security right. Thus, as long as the base point at the time of enforcement of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191), priority relationship should be determined accordingly, and priority relationship should not be determined differently by the amended provisions of the former Local Tax Act.

[3] Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991) provides that the priority relationship of claims secured by claims, mortgages, etc. of local taxes shall be determined separately from the priority relationship of the principal tax, because it is clear that the priority relationship of claims secured by claims, mortgages, etc. of additional dues shall be determined based on the payment period of additional dues, i.e., the date of the occurrence of additional dues.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Article 31 (2) 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 1991; hereinafter the same) provides that "the due date for payment" refers to the statutory due date for payment stipulated by tax law in the local tax return method such as the registration tax of this case, so the registration of this real estate shall be the date of registration (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da31697, Sept. 4, 1998). Accordingly, according to the facts established by the court below, the date of registration of ownership transfer of the non-party company's real estate subject to the imposition of the registration tax of this case is January 15, 190, while the date of establishment of the plaintiff's right to the real estate of this case is February 17, 1990, the claims of this case shall be secured by the registration tax of this case.

The judgment of the court below that made the above conclusion is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is that applying Article 31 (2) 3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), which is the law at the time of distributing the proceeds of public sale, the base point at which the priority relationship with claims secured by local tax claims, mortgages, etc. should be calculated as of April 27, 1992, which is the date of the delivery of the registration tax payment notice. However, the base point at which priority relationship with claims secured by local tax claims, mortgages, etc. under the Local Tax Act is established as of April 27, 1992 at the time of harmonization between the public interest recognized by priority right and the protection of the security right, so long as the base point at which the provisions of the former Local Tax Act were enacted, the priority relationship should be determined accordingly, and since the provisions were amended at the time of distributing the proceeds of public sale, the above argument cannot be accepted.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that since the payment period of the additional dues for the registration tax of this case is April 30, 1992 set by the non-party head of the non-party principal notified of correction of the registration tax of this case and the additional dues cannot be given priority to the plaintiff's claims secured by the right to collateral security of this case previously set, the priority relationship with the claims secured by the right to collateral security of this case is the same as the principal tax's priority relationship, and the additional dues do not have a separate priority relationship.

However, it is evident that Article 31(2)3 of the former Local Tax Act provides that the priority relationship of claims secured by claims for additional dues and mortgages, etc. of local taxes shall be based on the payment period of additional dues, i.e., the payment period of the principal tax, not on the principal tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da31697, supra).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding priority relationship with claims secured by additional dues and mortgages. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, which is equivalent to 10,871,430 won and delayed damages, shall be reversed, and the part shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)