The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The seizure under the provisions of Article 45 of the International Collection Act does not automatically become effective due to the payment of the delinquent amount at the time of seizure, and it also has the effect on the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration of seizure that remains effective (Article 47 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act).

As determined by the court below, if four lots of land owned by the court of first instance were seized due to the delinquency of gift tax on Defendant 2 in the payment of gift tax, etc. against the court below, and two lots of land were sold at auction upon the application for voluntary auction by the mortgagee, and the delinquent payment procedure was completed, but the transfer income tax imposed on the same person for the remaining two lots of land in this case was not yet cancelled, the effect of the seizure shall naturally affect the effect of the above seizure. Thus, the court below held that the defendant lawfully acquired the ownership in accordance with the procedure for disposition on default as set forth in the above purport, and rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the transfer of ownership, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the seizure under the International Collection Act,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)

Impossibility of signing and sealing a leap