[1] The validity of the sale disposition in a case where the local tax was allocated by double seizure of the property attached by the public imposts, such as industrial accident compensation insurance fees, and the sales price was allocated to the local tax by double seizure

[2] Whether Article 34 of the Local Tax Act, which provides the principle of attachment priority, applies mutatis mutandis to both the industrial accident compensation insurance fees and local taxes (negative)

[3] Whether Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act can be deemed as a provision recognizing the attachment priority system for the additional dues and disposition fee for arrears of public charges (negative)

[1] Article 34 of the Local Tax Act provides for the priority of local taxes shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where the head of a local government or a public official entrusted with the head of a local government conducts double seizure based on public charges such as industrial accident compensation insurance fees, and then allocates local taxes on the property prior to the disposition of arrears. Thus, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act that provides for the priority of local taxes shall not apply to cases where the principle of priority of local taxes is not applied to cases where a person who has already attached property delays the procedure of public sale, etc. on the part of an agency related to public charges, such as a request for delivery or participation in the attachment, and it is not permitted to double seizure. Therefore, even if the public auction procedure is implemented for a long time, the person having authority to participate in such disposition can notify that local taxes should be sold to an agency having already attached property for a long time, and where the public auction procedure is implemented under the current tax law, it cannot be deemed that the result of double sale is unreasonable, and it can be deemed that the result of double sale is unreasonable.

[2] Article 34 of the Local Tax Act provides that Article 36 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003) recognizes exceptions to the principle of equality under the Civil Execution Act by declaring the so-called precautionary principle that the first attached tax is more than the tax requested by the national and local taxes, and Article 76 of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003) provides that the collection order of industrial accident compensation insurance premiums is the next priority order of national and local taxes, and Article 74 (1) of the same Act provides that the collection of industrial accident compensation insurance premiums shall follow the examples of disposition on default of national taxes. Each of the above provisions provides that each of the above provisions has a self-performance right to enforce the collection of industrial accident compensation insurance premiums in accordance with the procedure of disposition on default under the language and text, the form of the provision, and it cannot be deemed that Article 34 of the Local Tax

[3] Generally, the term "disposition on default" under the Tax Act means a series of administrative procedures with the purpose of obtaining satisfaction of tax claims by the State or a local government by seizing taxpayer's property and by itself. However, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the priority of seizure, provides that "a seizure is made through the disposition on default of national taxes or by the disposition on default of local taxes" is limited to "a seizure" which is a part of the procedure of disposition on default. On the other hand, Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act, which provides exceptions to the principle of priority of local taxes, provides that "the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges," which provides that "the collection of local taxes is collected from the amount of disposition on default of national taxes or public charges," which provides that "the local taxes are collected from the amount of disposition on default of local taxes and are already conducted through the procedure of disposition on default of public charges and thus, the proceeds from sale are planned to be allocated, which is only an exception to the disposition on default of local taxes and the disposition on default of local taxes.

[1] Article 74(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003) (see current Article 28(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance), Articles 56, 57(1), and 58 of the National Tax Collection Act, and Articles 31(2)1, 34, and 82 of the Local Tax Act / [2] Article 34 of the Local Tax Act, Article 74(1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003) (see current Article 28(1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance / [3] Article 31(1) and (2)1, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da44384 decided May 27, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1029)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Cheongju-si (Attorney Kim Tae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2007Na3958 Decided June 10, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 74 (1) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 7049 of Dec. 31, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act") provides that "the Corporation may, if a person who has received a demand under Article 73 fails to pay insurance premiums and other dues under this Act within the prescribed period, collect them in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are approved by the Minister of Labor." Meanwhile, Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the head of a tax office shall request the head of a tax office to issue a notice of attachment to the government office or public organization which has received a disposition of arrears with national taxes, local taxes or public charges (the taxpayer shall be subject to a disposition of arrears with national taxes, local taxes or public charges)" provides that "the head of a tax office shall issue a notice of attachment to the agency or public organization which has already participated in the disposition of attachment for a long time in lieu of a request for attachment under Article 56 of the Local Tax Act."

However, in cases where the head of a local government or a public official delegated by him/her sells local taxes based on public charges, such as industrial accident compensation insurance fees, and then allocates local taxes, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the priority of local taxes, is difficult to be applied mutatis mutandis, as seen earlier. As such, the priority of local taxes is not likely to be avoided. On the other hand, in cases where an agency related to public charges delays the procedure of public sale such as sale, it is only possible to notify the agency having already attached of the disposal of the property to dispose of the property under Article 58(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, and there is no legal device to prevent such delay in the procedure of public sale under the current law. Thus, if a sale disposition is made late only after a prolonged period of time while the agency related to public charges delays the procedure of sale, and then the sales disposition is made late, it is difficult to view that the local taxes are subject to the priority of sale due to the imposition of additional dues or expenses for disposition on default of local taxes.

In the same purport, the court below held that the sale of the real estate of this case, which the head of the Si/Gun/Gu under the jurisdiction of the defendant, which was the participation agency, is unlawful, since the seizure conducted twice with respect to the real estate of this case, which was already attached by the plaintiff, is only the effect of the request for delivery or participation in the attachment. However, even if the sale disposition of this case is illegal, it shall not be deemed that there is an important and obvious defect that can be deemed null and void as a matter of course. There is no error

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 34 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that "in case where the property of a taxpayer or a person liable for extraordinary collection has been seized by the disposition on default of money collectible by a local government, if another local government or a person liable for extraordinary collection requests the delivery of money collectible by the local government related to the attachment, the money collectible by the local government related to the attachment shall be collected in preference to the money collectible by other local government or the national taxes related to the request for delivery." Article 34 (2) of the same Act provides that "in case where the property of a taxpayer or a person liable for extraordinary collection is seized by the disposition on default of national taxes, the money collectible by a local government related to the request for delivery of money collectible by the local government related to the attachment shall be collected either after the attachment or next collection of money collectible by the local government, or between national taxes and local taxes, the amount of money collectible by the local government related to the request for delivery of money collectible by the local government shall be collected by the local government, and Article 76 (3) of the former Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act provides that "it is difficult to the person subject to collect money under Article 73 (4) of the Act.

Meanwhile, Article 31(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that "the local government's impositions shall be collected in preference to other public charges and other claims." Article 31(2)1 of the same Act provides that "in the case of collecting the local tax charges from the amount of the disposition on default of national taxes or public charges, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply." Generally, the term "disposition on default" under the Tax Act is a series of administrative procedures with the aim of preserving taxpayer's properties and obtaining satisfaction of tax claims, and it refers to the attachment of property, the sale of seized property, the appropriation of proceeds from sale, and the distribution of proceeds from the disposition on default of national taxes or national taxes." Article 34 of the Local Tax Act provides that "in the case of seizure by the disposition on default of local taxes or national taxes, the local government's imposition on delinquent taxes or local taxes shall be limited to the "disposition on default of national taxes or local taxes," which is part of the procedure for the disposition on default of local taxes, so it is difficult to interpret the provisions of Article 31(2)1 of the Local Tax Act as an exception to the sale of local taxes.

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below determined that the plaintiff only seized the real estate of this case by the disposition on default, but not going beyond the procedure for the public sale in this case, cannot assert the right of preferential collection in the distribution procedure of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the exception of the seizure right of the seizure right of this case under Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)