If the amount equivalent to the value-added tax imposed on the disposition of the public sale of the building subject to the disposition of the public sale is not allocated to the claims secured by the mortgage (negative)

Value-added tax is a national tax imposed on the property stipulated in Article 18 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes because it is apparent in the text that it is not a national tax imposed on the property, so the value-added tax imposed on the building that is subject to the transaction that supplied the building through the public sale shall not take precedence over the claims secured by a mortgage on the building. Since it cannot be deemed that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax falls under the expenses for compulsory execution, auction procedure, etc. under Article 35 (2)

Article 35(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (the Constitutional Court Order 89Hun-Ga95 delivered on September 3, 1990, referred to as "one year from September 3, 199), Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1984, 691)

Seoul Trust Bank, Inc.

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu12157 delivered on April 6, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that any national tax or additional dues (excluding any national tax and additional dues imposed on the property) shall not be collected in preference to claims secured by the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage in the sale of the property for which the fact that the establishment of the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, or mortgage has been registered one year prior to the due date of national tax payment is proved, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 18 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that any national tax imposed on the property provided for in Article 35 (1) 3 of the same Act shall be the inheritance tax, gift tax, or revaluation tax, unless the value-added tax is the national tax imposed on the property provided for in Article 18 (1) of the Enforcement Decree. Since it is apparent in the text of the Act, any transaction that supplies the building through the public sale, the value-added tax imposed on the property shall not be preferentially imposed on claims secured by the mortgage (see Supreme Court Decision 28Meu2500, March 27, 1984).

In this regard, the judgment of the court below that the value-added tax on the transaction of the instant real estate supplied cannot take precedence over the claims secured by the right to collateral security on the instant real estate due to the public sale of this case. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that did not distribute the amount equivalent to the value-added tax to the Plaintiff’s secured claim is just and it is not justified in the decision of the court below that the value-added tax on the instant real estate constitutes an unlawful disposition of this case on the grounds that it constitutes expenses required for compulsory execution and auction procedure under Article 35 subparag. 2 of the Framework

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)