The effect of the attachment disposition again against the machinery and apparatus installed in the above factory after the attachment as a disposition of arrears against the site and building of the factory on which the factory mortgage was established.

If the tax authority seizes the site and building of a factory for which the right to collateral security was established under the Factory Mortgage Act as a disposition for arrears, the effect of the seizure would also extend to the machinery and apparatus installed in the factory, even though there is a delinquent tax amount newly incurred after the seizure, the effect of the seizure also affects it by Article 47 of the National Tax Collection Act. Therefore, if the tax authority seizes the same again to the machinery and apparatus installed in the factory on the ground of the delinquent tax amount newly incurred, it is invalid as a double seizure disposition.

Articles 4, 5, 10(1), and 10(2) of the Factory Mortgage Act; Article 47 of the National Tax Collection Act

Plaintiff

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu904 delivered on December 12, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the plaintiff purchased the machinery and equipment of this case from the non-party Korea Industrial Corporation of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") prior to the disposition of the seizure of this case based on the macroficial evidence. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact are acceptable and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence. Further, the plaintiff has a legal interest in seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the seizure of this case as the purchaser of the machinery and apparatus of this case, and therefore there is no interest in seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the seizure of this case.

2. According to Articles 4 and 5 of the Factory Mortgage Act, the effect of the mortgage established by the owner of a factory on the land or building belonging to the factory shall be extended to the things in its entirety, in addition to the land or building, and to the machinery, apparatus, and other factories installed on the land or building. According to Article 10(1) of the same Act, the attachment, provisional attachment or provisional disposition on the land or building which is the object of the mortgage shall also extend to the things which are the object of the mortgage under Articles 4 and 5. According to the provisions of Articles 4 and 5(2) of the same Act, the object which is the object of the mortgage under Articles 4 and 5 shall not be the object of attachment, provisional attachment or provisional disposition unless it is together with the land or building.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the items listed in the list No. 1 attached to the judgment below, which is the object of the attachment disposition, are machinery and apparatus installed in the factory (land and building) listed in the list No. 2 attached to the same list (hereinafter referred to as this machine and apparatus). The defendant had already seized the above factory site and factory building as a disposition on default on the non-party company's tax amount on June 30, 1983 prior to the attachment disposition (hereinafter referred to as the "first attachment disposition"), and the above factory site and factory building were registered for establishment registration under the Factory Mortgage Act in the name of the Industrial Bank at the time of the first attachment disposition on the above factory site and factory building. Thus, the effect of the first attachment disposition is merely a separate attachment disposition under the above factory mortgage law, and even if the delinquent amount of the non-party company at the time of the first attachment disposition is included in part after the first attachment disposition, it cannot be viewed that the first attachment disposition becomes null and void after the second attachment disposition's new attachment disposition under the National Tax Collection Act.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is 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 Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)