[1] Legislative intent of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the scope of "national taxes imposed on the property" under the proviso of Article 35(1)3 of the same Act

[2] The case holding that the inheritance tax was not the corresponding tax on the ground that the secured real right holder could not predict that the real estate should be subject to the inheritance tax, in case of the real estate which is not publicly notified as inherited property on the registration of real estate

[1] The legislative intent of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to properly harmonize the judicial request to guarantee transaction safety and the public interest request to secure the realization of tax claims with respect to the secured real right accompanying public disclosure. Thus, even if the pertinent tax is priority over the claims secured by the secured right, it shall not infringe on the essential contents of the secured right, and therefore, the "national tax imposed on the property" under the proviso of Article 35(1)3 of the same Act shall be deemed to mean a national tax imposed solely on the possession of the pertinent property, as it can be predicted to the extent that a person who acquired the secured right can expect to impose on the property in the future, and it shall be deemed that only the possession of the pertinent property itself is

[2] The case holding that the inheritance tax was not the corresponding tax on the ground that the secured real right holder could not predict that the real estate should be subject to the inheritance tax, in case of the real estate which is not publicly notified as inherited property on the registration of real estate

[1] Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 18(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15968 of Dec. 31, 198) / [2] Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da23184 delivered on March 18, 199 (Gong199Sang, 715 delivered on September 26, 1989) (Gong199Sang, 715)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Han-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Asset-Backed Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han Law Firm, Attorneys Sung-min et al., Counsel for plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na13848 delivered on June 5, 2001

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

The purpose of Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to properly harmonize the judicial request to guarantee transaction safety and the public interest request to secure the realization of tax claims with respect to the secured real rights accompanying the public disclosure. Thus, even if the pertinent tax is priority over the claims secured by the secured real rights, it shall not infringe on the essential contents of the secured real rights. Therefore, the "national tax imposed on the property" under the proviso of Article 35(1)3 of the same Act means a national tax imposed by recognizing the taxable capacity of the person who acquires the secured real rights can be sufficiently predicted to impose on the property in the future (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da23184 delivered on March 18, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below judged that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1 et al.")'s real estate of this case entered in the separate list of the court below's decision that the non-party 3 did not acquire the ownership transfer registration due to the non-party 5's agreement on July 20, 191 and won in the first instance court [Seoul Civil District Court 92 Gohap (Case No. 92)], as the judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 1995, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not constitute the non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4 and the non-party 1 et al. were the non-party 5's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1' new auction procedure.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the pertinent tax as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)