Whether a person who entrusts the director of the competent tax office with the execution of a judgment on the denial of his/her employees shall be a legal interested person to receive the notice of a public auction of the execution.

The authority of the head of the competent tax office to entrust the execution of compensation to the employees who committed the denial of the affiliation of the plaintiff Twitman, belongs to the supervisory authority of the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, which is the supervisory authority of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is merely a person who receives the reflective interest of the supervisory authority, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the right to claim compensation under public law exists under

(Gu) Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Article 5, Article 6 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, Etc., Article 14 and Article 26 of the Korea Coal Corporation Act

Korea Coal Corporation

The Head of Seoul District Tax Office

The action shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On July 19, 1965, the Plaintiff sought a judgment to revoke the above disposition, either selectively, by confirming that the disposition of selling the real estate recorded in the attached list is invalid.

(1) In summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim, the non-party who was employed as the plaintiff's agent for the payment of KRW 2,216,00 from the Board of Audit and Inspection on May 17, 1960, and did not pay the compensation within the prescribed period. Thus, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy entrusted the defendant with the disposition of arrears as a result of the execution of the attachment of real estate recorded in the attached list and the execution of the auction procedure after the attachment of the above compensation, and the defendant decided to sell the above compensation on July 19, 1965 to the plaintiff who is an interested party under Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, without giving notice of the first public auction. Thus, this decision shall be null and void or revoked.

Therefore, first of all, we examine whether the plaintiff is an interested party who should notify the public auction under Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act.

(2) According to Article 76 (2) of the National Tax Collection Act, where the head of a tax office gives a public notice of a public auction under Article 73 (2) of the same Act, he/she shall notify the delinquent taxpayer, the owner of the security for tax payment, and the owner of the security for tax payment, of the date of public auction, the method of public auction, and the place of public auction at the same time. According to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff merely is a person who is to receive the indemnity to be collected as a result of the execution of the decision on the compensation of this case against the non-party, and it is clear that the plaintiff does not constitute the delinquent taxpayer, the owner of the security for tax payment, and the owner of the security for tax payment and the person who has the right of pledge or mortgage on the property. However, according to the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 4-2, the plaintiff is recognized to be a person who completed the registration on the provisional seizure of the real estate recorded in the list that was subject to the public auction

A) In the urban auction procedure, a person who has the registration of provisional seizure on the real estate in question cannot be deemed to be a right holder directly interested in the execution of the auction procedure only by itself (in case where there is any amount to be distributed by the right holder of the registration of provisional seizure in the liquidation of the proceeds of public auction, it shall be sufficient to deposit the real estate by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 95(1) of the Act to the time

B) According to the above evidence No. 4-1, No. 2 and the purport of oral argument, the right to be preserved for the provisional seizure of this case is recognized as a claim for damages due to tort against the non-party, who is a claim under the private law, which is a claim for the provisional seizure of this case, and this right is clearly distinguishable from the claim for compensation under the public law, which is the claim for compensation of this case. However, this two rights can be seen as a so-called "person who has other rights" under Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, which ceases to exist when the damages are compensated due to the first repayment or the first repayment. Therefore, the provisional seizure is merely to preserve the execution of the above private law claim at the same time to the extent equivalent to the amount to be collected by the execution of the decision of compensation of this case. Thus, it is difficult to view the provisional seizure right as a right of interest which is separate from the above claim for compensation, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as a "person who has other rights to the property" under Article

(3) On the other hand, if the right to claim for compensation for the amount of the instant compensation exists to the Plaintiff, in the public auction, which is the execution procedure of the instant compensation decision, the Plaintiff, a reimbursement creditor, is in the same position as the creditor who filed a request for auction for a compulsory auction under the Civil Procedure Act, and is in a direct interest in the public auction of this case. Thus, even if there is no express provision under Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, the Plaintiff, a creditor, should give the notice of the public auction to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff has the right to claim compensation for the amount of compensation in this case.

A) In light of the provisions of Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act and Articles 3 and 4 of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., the Board of Audit and Inspection’s determination of compensation can be known that, despite the fact that accounting personnel, etc. have a duty to faithfully comply with the relevant provisions under the conditions as prescribed by the budget, in the event they have inflicted damage on the property of the organization to which they belong by violating the provisions of the budget, the existence and degree of their liability for compensation should be deliberated and judged. Therefore, the compensation obligation by such determination of compensation should be deemed as public law, and the right to claim compensation is also the right under public law. (The Nonparty is liable to compensate the Plaintiff due to default or tort under the Civil Act. However, since the Nonparty is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages corresponding thereto, it shall not be confused with the right to claim compensation under public law, which is corresponding to the compensation obligation under the public law as stated above.

B) Therefore, the issue is whether the Plaintiff is deemed a person entitled to such public law. According to Articles 14 and 26 of the Coal Corporation Act, Article 31 of the Board of Audit and Inspection Act, Articles 5, 6, and 4, 9, and 10 of the Rules on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., and Procedure for Execution of Compensation, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy, which is the Plaintiff’s supervisory organ, may order the Plaintiff to compensate even before the Board of Audit and Inspection makes a decision on the compensation. If, as a result of the inspection, the Board of Audit and Inspection received the order of compensation from the Board of Audit and Inspection to the Plaintiff and sent a copy of the written order of compensation to the Plaintiff, and the order of compensation is not implemented within the prescribed period of time, and it is difficult to request the Nonparty to execute the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act on Liability of Accounting Personnel, etc., and the head of the tax office may not request the Nonparty’s supervisory authority to receive the compensation without delay, which is the Nonparty’s supervisory authority’s right to request for compensation.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be seen as a person who is in the same position as the creditor of the request for auction in a compulsory auction under the Civil Procedure Act as mentioned above. In this regard, the plaintiff cannot be seen as an interested person who is notified of the public auction.

(4) Ultimately, since the Plaintiff does not constitute an interested party to receive the notice of public auction under Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, there is no interest in dispute over the illegality of the public auction procedure, and this lawsuit is dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, and the litigation cost is decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-joon