[1] The validity of the registration of seizure of national tax made after provisional registration

[2] In a case where a national tax attachment registration after a provisional registration has been completed, where the relevant provisional registration is disputed whether the security provisional registration is a provisional registration after submission of explanatory materials as to the provisional registration of security, whether the registration officer can ex officio cancel the national tax attachment registration by recognizing the relevant provisional registration as a priority preservation provisional registration (negative), and whether whether the relevant provisional registration is a provisional registration of security is determined by entry in the grounds for registration in the registry (

[1] In a case where a provisional registration of preservation of the right to claim ownership has been made prior to the registration of the seizure of national tax and the principal registration has been made thereafter, if such provisional registration is a provisional registration of preservation of order based on the promise to sell and purchase, the registration of seizure completed thereafter shall lose its effect. However, if such provisional registration is a provisional registration of security, i.e., provisional registration for obligation security, even if the provisional registration is made later, the provisional registration shall have the effect of security,

[2] In a case where a national tax attachment registration has been completed after a provisional registration was made, if there is a substantial dispute between interested parties as to whether the relevant provisional registration is a provisional registration for security, regardless of the attitude of the principal registrant on the basis of the provisional registration, and a registered public official who does not have the right to a formal examination, who recognizes the relevant provisional registration as a provisional registration for preservation of priority, cannot cancel the national tax attachment registration after recognizing it as a provisional registration for preservation of priority. In addition, whether the relevant provisional registration is a provisional registration for security shall be determined by whether the relevant provisional registration is actually the purpose of a security for security for security, not by a formal statement that is whether the cause of the relevant provisional registration is written as a pre

[1] Article 17(3) of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act, Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 55 subparag. 2 and Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 17(3) of the Provisional Registration Security, etc. Act, Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 55 subparag. 2 and 178 of the Registration

[1] Supreme Court Order 87Ma1270 decided Mar. 24, 1988 (Gong1988, 683) (Gong1989, 513), Supreme Court Order 89Ma640 decided Nov. 2, 1989 (Gong1990, 12), Supreme Court Order 95Nu15193 decided Dec. 20, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 435) / [2] Supreme Court Order 91Ma675 decided Mar. 18, 1992 (Gong192, 1381)

Appellant 1 and 2 others (Law Firm International Law Office, Attorneys Kim Dai-ju et al., Counsel for the re-appellant)

Busan District Court Order 98Ra136 dated May 19, 1998

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 17(3) of the Provisional Registration Security Act provides that the right to provisional registration for security shall be deemed a mortgage in the application of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the National Tax Collection Act, the Local Tax Act, and the Company Reorganization Act. Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where a property is seized for the purpose of a provisional registration for preserving a claim for transfer of right on the basis of accord and satisfaction for which a taxpayer is responsible for registration and for default is the condition precedent, if the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration is effectuated after the seizure, the person holding the right to the provisional registration may not claim any right based on the provisional registration against a disposition for arrears to the property: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to the property provisionally registered before the statutory due date of national tax or additional dues, where the provisional registration has been made before the national tax attachment registration and the principal registration has been made thereafter, the subsequent provisional registration shall lose its effect. However, if the provisional registration is the provisional registration for obligation security, i.e., the principal registration after the provisional registration is made, the order of provisional registration cannot be cancelled between 196.

The court below is just in holding that even if a principal registration based on the provisional registration has been completed by judging each applicant's provisional registration as a security provisional registration in accordance with the above legal principle, it is not possible to cancel the national tax seizure registration completed between the provisional registration and the principal registration, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the arguments.

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)