[2] Whether the seizure under Article 45 of the former National Tax Collection Act automatically becomes effective due to the payment of delinquent amount at the time of seizure (negative), and whether the seizure also affects the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration of seizure (affirmative)

[3] The case affirming the court below's rejection of Gap's claim on the ground that the public sale disposition cannot be deemed null and void, in case where Gap, who was subject to attachment of land share due to the delinquency in payment of the first national tax, was served with the notice of public sale and paid the first national tax in full, but served with the notice of payment of the second national tax returned due to the reasons such as the failure of the head of the competent tax office's failure to release the attachment and served with the notice of payment of the second national tax, and Gap claimed a cancellation of ownership transfer registration

[4] Whether a disposition of public auction without notice of public auction against a delinquent taxpayer is void as a matter of course (negative)

[2] A seizure under Article 45 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011) is not automatically invalidated on the ground that the amount of delinquent local taxes at the time of seizure was paid, and is also effective on the amount of delinquent local taxes that occurred after the registration of seizure which remains effectively.

[3] In a case where Party A, who was subject to the attachment of land share due to the delinquency in the payment of the first national tax, was served with the notice of public auction and paid in full the first national tax, but served with the notice of payment of the second national tax returned due to the reasons such as the addressee's failure to cancel the attachment, and subsequently disposed of the ownership share in the land after the notice of payment of the second national tax was served with the notice of payment of the second national tax, and Party A claimed a cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles as to the attachment of the second national tax which was not effective since the notice of payment of the second national tax was served with the notice of payment of the second national tax after the lapse of the payment deadline, and the attachment was also effective from the time when the first national tax was served with the notice of payment of the second national tax until the second national tax becomes effective, and thus there was no ground to cancel the attachment since the first national tax was not paid in full, which is the delinquent amount of the first national tax, and thus, it cannot be seen as unlawful.

[4] Article 68 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 2011) provides that when the head of a tax office publicly announces a public auction of the attached property, he/she shall immediately notify the delinquent taxpayer of the details thereof. The notice of the public auction to the delinquent taxpayer falls under procedural requirements prescribed by Acts to protect the delinquent taxpayer’s rights and property interests in the public auction procedure conducted by the State’s compulsory power. However, even if the public auction is conducted without notice, the public auction disposition does not necessarily become null and void.

A. We examine the first ground for appeal.

(1) Article 47(2) of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 10527, Apr. 4, 201; hereinafter “National Tax Collection Act”) provides that “The seizure of real estate, etc. under Article 45 shall have effect on the delinquent amount of national taxes for which the statutory due date under Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes has arrived before the ownership of the relevant attached property is transferred.” Meanwhile, Article 53(1)1 of the same Act provides that the head of a tax office shall immediately release the attachment of national taxes where a delinquent taxpayer completely pays national taxes related to the attachment. Meanwhile, according to Article 35(1)3(d) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010), where national taxes are collected from the property of the secondary taxpayer, the statutory due date is the date on which a notice of payment under Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act is sent.

(2) The lower court first acknowledged the following facts.

① On May 8, 2004, the head of Suwon District Tax Office attached 1/5 of the Plaintiff’s share (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s share”) on the 3,967 square meters of forest land, 3,967 square meters in the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, under Article 45 of the National Tax Collection Act, and completed the attachment registration thereof on May 12, 2004.

② On September 22, 2004, the Korea Asset Management Corporation, which received a request from the head of the Suwon Tax Office for the public auction with respect to the Plaintiff’s share, sent a notice of public auction to the Plaintiff. On October 7, 2004, the notice of public auction was served on the Plaintiff.

③ On the other hand, on September 22, 2004, the head of the Suwon Tax Office sent a notice of payment on the value-added tax (hereinafter “the second national tax”) imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff as an oligopolistic shareholder of ESC link (hereinafter “the second national tax”). However, on November 204, the mail was returned due to the addressee’s unknown residence, etc., the notice of payment was served by public notice on November 20, 2004.

④ The Plaintiff paid in full the delinquent amount of the first national tax on October 5, 2004. However, the Plaintiff’s share was sold to Defendant 1 on December 30, 2004 and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 14, 2005.

Furthermore, based on such factual basis, the lower court determined that the effect of the first attachment under Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act extends to the second national tax from September 22, 2004, which is the date of sending a notice of payment on the second national tax, and that the Plaintiff’s payment of the second national tax after September 22, 2004, on which the notice of payment on the second national tax was sent, is merely the payment of a part of the amount in arrears related to the attachment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a reason for release from the attachment, and as long as the above attachment disposition and the public sale disposition based thereon are legitimate, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s registration of transfer of ownership caused by the

(3) The purport of Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act is to: (a) the effect of seizure naturally extends to the delinquent amount that occurred after the registration of seizure on one occasion without the need to obtain a new registration of seizure on the same person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6115, Nov. 12, 2004). The term “amount in arrears” refers to the national tax, its additional dues, etc. that has not been paid by the payment deadline after the establishment and determination of the liability for tax payment.

In this case, since a notice of payment on the second national tax was served by public notice on November 20, 2004 and the time limit for payment expires, the first attachment becomes effective from that time on the second national tax. Therefore, from October 5, 2004 where the Plaintiff paid the first national tax in full, until the second attachment becomes effective on the second national tax, there is a reason to release the attachment. Nevertheless, the court below erred in holding that the lower court’s full payment of the first national tax is merely a payment of part of the amount in arrears related to the attachment, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the reason to release the attachment occurred.

(4) However, the seizure under Article 45 of the National Tax Collection Act does not automatically lose its validity because the delinquent amount at the time of the seizure was paid, and as long as the seizure remains effective, the seizure also remains effective (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu17174 delivered on May 9, 198, etc.).

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and relevant provisions, the attachment of the first national tax, which is the delinquent amount, of the Plaintiff’s share, does not automatically become null and void, and the second national tax, which is the delinquent amount newly incurred without the release of the attachment, shall also become null and void. Therefore, the court below’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground that the attachment disposition against the Plaintiff’s share and the public sale disposition based thereon cannot be deemed null and void, is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of attachment under Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, which affected the conclusion

B. We examine the second ground for appeal.

(1) Article 68 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the head of a tax office shall immediately notify the delinquent taxpayer of the details of the public auction of the attached property when the head of a tax office publicly announces the public auction of the attached property. The notice of the public auction to the delinquent taxpayer falls under the procedural requirements prescribed by the Act to protect the delinquent taxpayer’s rights and interests in the property during the public auction conducted by the State’s compulsory power, but the public auction disposition without notifying it does not necessarily become null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 66Da1303, Sept. 27, 196, etc.).

(2) The argument in the grounds of appeal is that, since the Plaintiff paid in full the delinquent amount of the national tax on October 5, 2004, which was before the notice of public sale was served, the public sale disposition is null and void because it did not make a separate public sale notice in order to proceed with the public sale procedure as it is on the ground of the second national tax delinquency. However, even if it did not give a separate notice of public sale in the public sale procedure, the public sale disposition cannot be deemed null and void merely because it did not make such a separate notice of public sale. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the appeal against Defendant Republic of Korea

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an objection based on the grounds of final appeal. Therefore, the grounds of final appeal, etc. must specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the lower judgment is against the statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26015, Feb. 23, 2012).

However, the petition of appeal does not state the grounds of appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea, and the appellate brief does not state specific and explicit grounds on which part of the judgment below dismissing the defendant's claim against the Republic of Korea is in violation of the law. Thus, it cannot be said that there is legitimate grounds of appeal, and there is no other reason of illegality subject to ex officio examination in the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)