National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Racing Head of the Tax Office

December 18, 1979

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The administrative disposition taken by the defendant in attached Form shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

As of the date of establishment of the above national tax liability, the non-party Yong-Nam was designated as the secondary taxpayer on March 18, 1978 under Article 39 of the Framework Act on National Taxes for the reason that it was an oligopolistic shareholder of the above company, the non-party Noh Nam was designated as the secondary taxpayer on March 18, 1978 and the tax payment disposition of the above national tax (including additional dues) was not in dispute between the parties, and according to the witness testimony and the purport of oral argument, the above company and Noh Nam-hee did not object to the above disposition on the defendant's objection, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the above company and Noh Nam-hee did not object to the above disposition.

As of the date of establishment of the above national tax liability imposed on the above company, the above No. 1 and 2 was not an oligopolistic shareholder of the above company, and accordingly, the disposition of seizure of the above No. 3's real estate and the disposition of a voluntary auction conducted by the plaintiff as the mortgagee of the above No. 3's real estate is significant and obvious, so the defect is obvious, and thus, the plaintiff as the mortgagee of the above company and No. 3's real estate suffered substantial damage to the recovery of the national tax due to the above disposition of the defendant, and thus the plaintiff as the mortgagee of the above company and No. 3's real estate was claimed as the cancellation of the above disposition (the plaintiff's own authority or authority of No. 1 and the right of subrogation of the above person as the creditor of No. 3) by the defendant as the lawsuit of this case. The defendant's litigation performer does not have the qualification to seek the cancellation of the disposition of this case, and therefore the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

Therefore, first of all, whether the plaintiff is eligible to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case, such as whether the plaintiff has standing to sue or not, shall be limited to the person directly subjected to the disposition of this case due to the illegality of the disposition under the tax laws such as taxation, etc. In the lawsuit seeking cancellation, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be limited to the person directly subjected to the disposition of this case. Since each disposition of the attached Form 1, 2, and 3 issued by the defendant against the non-party Nohnam is identical as recognized above, the plaintiff entitled to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be the above Noh Nam. And the plaintiff's claim for distribution of the attached Form 4 against the plaintiff's above Noh Nam-hee shall not be a party to the claim for cancellation of the disposition of this case and the disposition of arrears (the plaintiff's claim for distribution of the attached Form No. 4, which is the object of this case's appeal against the court of execution under the National Tax Collection Act, even if the plaintiff's claim for distribution of the attached object is unlawful by the plaintiff's claim for distribution.

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is all unlawful and dismissed, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 27, 1979

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)