Whether the first priority principle of attachment applies to the tax claims based on national and local taxes and the additional dues and disposition fees for arrears of public charges (affirmative); and whether the participation agency may demand the agency having already attached the disposition to sell the property where the prior attachment agency delays the subsequent realization procedure by being aware of the prior attachment order (affirmative)

In full view of the provisions of Articles 79(3) and 81 of the National Pension Act, Article 58 of the Medical Insurance Act, Article 57(1) and Article 58(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 34 of the Local Tax Act, the proviso of Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 31(2)1 of the Local Tax Act, the priority order shall be determined by applying the principle of priority of priority of the taxation claims and public charges (excluding the public charges themselves) which prohibit national taxes and local taxes, and the additional charges and expenses for disposition on default (excluding the public charges themselves) of the local tax Act shall be determined thoroughly. To maintain this, the right of priority of sale shall be granted to the attachment agency, and the order of priority disposal shall be corrected by the agency that has participated in the attachment to the agency that has notified the agency

[1] Articles 79(3) and 81 of the National Pension Act, Article 58 of the Medical Insurance Act, Articles 57(1) and 58(3) of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 35(1) and 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 31(2)1 and 34 of the Local Tax Act

Sweld City

The National Pension Management Corporation (Attorney Song-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Changwon District Court Decision 200Na238 delivered on April 7, 2000

Supreme Court Decision 2000Da57931 Delivered on January 31, 2001

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,287,440 won with 5% interest per annum from September 21, 1999 to March 16, 200, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The judgment of the court below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no counter-proof evidence in regard to each statement of Gap evidence 1 through 7, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading.

A. On May 13, 1998, the plaintiff seized the 8B625 Gyeongnam-nam 1995 3.5t truck owned by the company as the comprehensive distribution of the non-party limited partnership company was delinquent in local taxes (other than property tax) and the defendant seized the truck on June 30, 1998 on the ground that the truck was delinquent.

B. After this, the defendant, on September 2, 1999, sold the above truck to 3,000,000 won on September 2, 199, without demanding the plaintiff, who is the agency having already attached the property to sell it, and notified the plaintiff of the next day of the distribution date. On September 17, 1999, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to deliver the above company the local tax and additional dues 8,141,040 won in arrears.

C. On September 21, 1999, the Defendant first collected expenses for disposition on default and pension premium arrears of KRW 194,700, and KRW 2,287,440, respectively, and decided to grant the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 517,860.

2. Determination:

According to Articles 79(3) and 81 of the National Pension Act, the pension premiums and other dues under the same Act may be collected in the same manner as delinquent national taxes are collected, and the priority order of collection shall be the same as that of insurance premiums under the Medical Insurance Act, and according to Article 58 of the Medical Insurance Act, the priority order of collection of insurance premiums shall take precedence over other claims

Meanwhile, Article 57 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "if the property to be attached is the property under the attachment of another agency, it may participate in the attachment by serving a notice of participation in the attachment on the agency having already attached the property," and Article 58 (3) of the same Act provides that where the agency having already attached the property does not sell the attached property for a long time, the agency having already attached the property may send a notice of participation in the attachment to the agency having already attached the property. Article 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 34 of the Local Tax Act provides that "The first priority is to collect the tax claim that has already started for the attachment (the first priority is to collect the national tax and local tax)" and Article 35 (1) proviso of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 31 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that the additional dues and disposition fee for arrears of the public charges may be collected more preferentially than the national tax and local tax when the attachment is commenced by priority (this public charges are more than the legal doctrine of satisfaction of the

In full view of these legal provisions, the priority order shall be set by applying the principle of priority of priority of seizure, which prevents national and local taxes, and the additional dues and expenses for disposition on default of public charges (excluding public charges themselves) shall be determined thoroughly, and the right of priority disposal shall also be granted to the seizure agency, and the right of priority disposal shall be granted to the disposal agency and the order of delay in the subsequent realization procedure shall be corrected by the system that the participating agency can notify the agency having already attached the disposal of the disposal.

Therefore, it is illegal to preferentially sell the above vehicle attached by the plaintiff based on local tax bonds without going through the procedures such as participation in the attachment and demand for sale, and use it for the repayment of its own bonds in violation of the above law (as the defendant's assertion, the method of remedy where the agency having already attached the above vehicle fails to comply with the demand for the sale disposition is not legal. However, it is not possible to pay attention to arbitrarily treating the foundation of the national system concerning compulsory collection of taxes, public charges, etc. on the ground that there is a problem to solve it through the legislative supplementation, even if there is a problem, it can not be used to solve it without delay if the defendant did not avoid such illegality, 2,287,40 won will be appropriated to the defendant's local tax bonds, so it is possible to take priority over the collection of local tax (it is limited to the case where the collection of local tax is prior to the seizure of local tax, and thus, it is equivalent to the amount of the above public charges to the defendant's benefits without any legitimate cause).

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to return to the plaintiff the above unjust enrichment and the above unjust enrichment, from September 21, 1999, to March 16, 200, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is clear, to March 16, 200, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking performance is justified, and the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow-gu (Presiding Judge) O financial resources