[1] In a case where the sale price of the attached property is distributed after the sale through the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the standard for determining the distribution order and the scope of the general creditors entitled to participate

[2] Meaning of "a mistake in distribution order" under Article 81 (5) of the National Tax Collection Act, and whether the person who should have been properly distributed may claim the return of unjust enrichment against the party who was unreasonably distributed the seized property, in case where the sale price after the sale of the attached property through the procedure for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act (affirmative)

[1] The procedure for delinquency in payment of national taxes and civil execution procedure under the current Act are separate procedures, so one cannot interfere with the procedure for the other party, while each obligee is bound to participate in the procedure different from each other. In the procedure for delinquency in payment of national taxes, the head of a tax office shall distribute the proceeds from sale to claims secured by national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears, national taxes, additional dues, additional dues, local taxes or public charges, lease on a deposit basis related to attached property, pledge or mortgage (Article 81(1) of the National Tax Collection Act). The general creditors who are not prescribed above are unable to participate in the procedure for delinquency in payment of national taxes. However, if the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears and other claims, the head of a tax office shall determine the order of priority and amount to be apportioned under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes and subordinate statutes, and if the proceeds from sale are distributed or appropriated first of all due to mistake in distribution order, improper request for delivery, and other reasons corresponding thereto, the amount of wages or priority under the Labor Standards Act.

[2] "Misunderstanding in the distribution order" under Article 81 (5) of the National Tax Collection Act means that the chief of a tax office does not know the existence of a claim which takes precedence over the national taxes in distributing the proceeds of sale, etc., or determines the amount erroneously. In such a case, the said chief of a tax office may cancel the above erroneous distribution and seek the return thereof from the person who received the distribution, and may seek the amount of the distribution as unjust enrichment from a civil lawsuit against the person who shall otherwise be duly distributed the proceeds of sale.

[1] [1] Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 741 of the Civil Act; Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act

Jeong-won

National Pension Management Corporation

Suwon District Court Decision 98Na212100 delivered on April 30, 1999

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,686,730 won with 25% interest per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the complaint and a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6:

A. On October 4, 1994, the plaintiff was enrolled in the non-party Jung Ho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") and retired on September 30, 1998. The plaintiff applied for provisional attachment from the above company on August 1, 1997; November 1, 1997; June 6, 1997; the amount of the monthly salary from February 1, 1998 to September 9; the amount of the retirement allowance paid to the above company 23,921,910 won; the total amount of the retirement allowance paid to the above company 9,000,000 won among the wage claims; and the court's judgment was completed on October 29, 1997 with the above company's provisional attachment and provisional attachment as 98Kadan484; and the above company's judgment was completed on October 29, 197.

B.On the other hand, with respect to the above automobile, the non-party Hyundai Motor Division completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security on August 22, 1997. On June 22, 1998, the defendant, on the ground of the non-party company's delinquency in payment of national pension charges, the non-party company's Environment Improvement Charges on June 25, 1998. On July 20, 1998, the non-party 7 District Medical Insurance Association (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 7 District Medical Insurance Association") completed each seizure on the ground of delinquency in payment of the above company's medical insurance premiums on July 20, 1998. The above association disposed of the above automobile in accordance with the Medical Insurance Act and National Tax Collection Act and distributed 11,010,265,250,250,000 won to the defendant, and distributed 30,0000 won to the above company's obligee, 305,73705,700,75,7100.

2. Determination on each argument

A. The plaintiff asserts that the above distribution procedure, which allocated the above amount to the defendant 5,686,730 won, is unlawful, and the above distribution procedure is unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the above disposition procedure is not a creditor entitled to allocation under Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act, as separate procedure from civil execution procedure, and the above distribution procedure is not applicable to the disposition procedure for arrears, and the above distribution procedure is not just and unlawful since the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act are not applicable.

(b)Health House, under the current law, the procedure for national tax delinquency and the civil execution procedure are separate procedures, and therefore cannot interfere with the other party's procedure, while each creditor in both procedures is bound to participate in the different procedure by way of mutually different procedure. In the procedure for national tax delinquency, the chief of the tax office (in accordance with the Medical Insurance Act as in this case, insurers or insurers' organizations) has allocated the proceeds of sale to claims secured by national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears, national taxes, additional dues, additional dues, local taxes or public charges related to the attachment, lease on a deposit basis, pledge or mortgage related to the attachment (Article 81, Paragraph 1 of the National Tax Collection Act), and the general creditors who are not prescribed above are unable to participate in the procedure for national tax delinquency.

However, if the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of national taxes, additional dues and expenses for disposition on default and other claims, the head of a tax office shall distribute the proceeds from sale by determining the order and amount to be apportioned under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes. If the head of a tax office distributes or appropriates the proceeds from sale in preference to the delinquent amount due to mistake in distribution order, unreasonable request for delivery and other reasons corresponding thereto, the amount to be distributed or appropriated shall be paid in the same manner as refund of national tax refund to the creditors which have priority over the national taxes (Article 81(4) and (5) of the National Tax Collection Act). In conclusion, the priority order of distribution of the proceeds from sale is determined according to the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Civil Act and other special Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that small-sum deposit which is recognized as priority repayment right under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which takes precedence over the national taxes related to seizure, or those under Article 37(1) and (2) of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5473 of December 24, 198).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for wages of this case always takes precedence over national taxes related to seizure, which is merely a priority following national taxes, local taxes (Article 81 of the National Pension Act, Article 58 of the Medical Insurance Act) and the Defendant’s claim for medical insurance premiums of the above union or national pension premiums of the defendant. Thus, the above distribution to the Defendant was made without any legal ground against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was employed before and after the enforcement of the Labor Standards Act amended by Act No. 5473 of December 24, 1997, which was amended by Act No. 5473 of December 24, 1997. Thus, the scope of the retirement allowance preferential to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the above Act is partially limited, but there is no difference between the Plaintiff’s service period and the amount acknowledged as preferential payment right pursuant to the new and old Labor Standards Act. In other words, the Plaintiff’s claim for the above allocation of the amount of retirement allowance is not known to the Plaintiff prior to retirement, and thus, the above allocation amount of retirement allowance can be cancelled to the above.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from December 19, 1998 to the date of delivery of a copy of complaint 5,686,730 won and the next day of the delivery of a copy of complaint to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified in its entirety, and the judgment below is just in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant's appeal.

Judge Hwang Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)