Where the proceeds of the public auction are short of the total amount of several national taxes related to the attachment in the procedures for disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act, the method of appropriation therefor.

Article 81(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the amount of national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears related to the attachment shall be allocated to the claims secured by the right of lease on deposit basis, pledge, local taxes, or public imposts related to the attachment; 3. If the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of the national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears related to the attachment under the subparagraphs of paragraph (1), the head of a tax office shall set and allocate the order and amount to be apportioned under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes. Paragraph (5) thereof provides that the head of a tax office shall, when he/she distributes or appropriates the proceeds from sale under the provisions of paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) in preference to the total amount of national taxes due to mistake in distribution order or improper request for delivery of national taxes and other similar reasons, if he/she first distributes or appropriates the proceeds from the national taxes refund to the creditors having priority over the national taxes, the amount of such allocation or appropriation under the Civil Procedure Act provides that the amount of national taxes in arrears under the National Tax Collection Act shall be distributed to the creditors under the Civil Procedure Act is unlawful.

Article 81 of the National Tax Collection Act, Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Fu Mutual Savings and Finance Company (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Sung-min et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 98Na5111 delivered on May 27, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below judged that the notice of the payment of the gift tax of this case and the capital gains tax of 1993 was lawfully issued on the grounds of its stated reasoning. In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

2. On the second ground for appeal

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disposition of gift tax in this case is just, and there is no other evidence to deem the disposition of imposition as a case of substantial and apparent defect, such as where there is no legal relation or factual relation which is subject to taxation only on the ground of the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of imposition of gift tax in this case is null and void. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the administrative disposition which is null and void as a matter of course.

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are rejected.

3. On the third ground for appeal

The court below held that "the national taxes and the additional dues imposed on the property" under Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which stipulates the priority collection of the pertinent tax, is excluded from the national taxes and the additional dues imposed on the property, in light of the legislative purport of the Framework Act on National Taxes and the nature of the gift tax, etc., and the same applies to the interpretation of the pertinent tax even if it does not violate the Constitution. Such decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the pertinent tax under Article

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are not accepted.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment period was partially appropriated as part of the transfer income tax in the case of this case where the payment period was 183,000,000 won from the sale price of this case, (1) the transfer income tax in 1994, the payment period of which was September 30, 1994, (2) the transfer income tax in 1993, the transfer income tax in 194, the transfer income tax in 194, the payment period of which was October 31, 1993, and (3) the transfer income tax in 194, and (4) the transfer income tax in 194, the payment period of which was 194, was appropriated as part of the transfer income tax in 193, and otherwise, it rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer income tax in this case was appropriated as part of the transfer income tax in accordance with Article 81(4) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 477 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act.

Article 81(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the amount of national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears related to the attachment shall be apportioned to claims secured by the right to lease on deposit basis, pledge, local taxes, or public charges; 3. The head of a tax office shall, when the proceeds from sale fall short of the total amount of national taxes, additional dues, disposition fees for arrears and other claims under the subparagraphs of paragraph (1), be apportioned according to the order of priority and amount to be apportioned under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes. Paragraph (5) of the same Article provides that the head of a tax office shall, when he/she distributes or appropriates the proceeds from sale under the provisions of paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) in preference to the total amount of national taxes, the amount of national taxes, which has priority over the national taxes, shall be apportioned or appropriated in the same manner as the national taxes are refunded to the creditors having priority over the total amount of national taxes, and that the amount of national taxes in arrears under the Civil Procedure Act shall not be apportioned to the creditors under the same procedure as the national taxes collection procedure is unlawful.

Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below on this point is somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, the incomplete hearing, or the misapprehension of the legal principles on the

The grounds of appeal pointing out this issue are also rejected.

5. Conclusion

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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)