[1] Medical insurance premium claims under the Medical Insurance Act and national pension premium claims under the National Pension Act (the same)

[2] Whether Article 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes applies to a compulsory auction procedure under the Civil Procedure Act (negative)

[1] The priority order of collection of national pension premiums and medical insurance premiums is the same as that next to national and local taxes.

[2] The principle of attachment attachment is only applicable to the procedure of disposition on default under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the National Tax Collection Act and the Local Tax Act, which apply mutatis mutandis, and does not apply to the procedure of compulsory auction under the

[1] Articles 79(3) and 81 of the National Pension Act; Articles 56(3) and 58 of the Medical Insurance Act; / [2] Article 36 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

National Pension Management Corporation

Gyeongnam-nam Medical Insurance Cooperatives

Changwon District Court Decision 97Da103 delivered on March 27, 1997

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,420,490 won with 25 percent interest per annum from February 23, 1997 to the date of full payment.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

Upon Nonparty 1’s application, a compulsory auction was commenced on October 21, 1995 with respect to 139-5 Nadong 303, Dong-dong 139-dong 139-dong 2, Busan District Court (hereinafter “the real estate of this case”), which is an apartment building owned by Nonparty 2, on the ground that the above non-party 2 was delinquent in local tax, etc. on November 22, 1995, on the ground that the above non-party 2 was delinquent in payment of the medical insurance premium on March 30, 1996; the plaintiff seized the real estate of this case on March 13, 1996; the real estate of this case was awarded on May 6, 1996; the court calculated the total amount of interest on the successful bid price of 56,362,185 won to the non-party 2, the non-party 40-party 2, the non-party 2504, the non-party 2504, and 258

The plaintiff asserts that it is unfair to exclude the plaintiff and distribute the remaining amount only to the defendant, despite the same priority order of each of the above claims by the plaintiff and the defendant, so the defendant's distribution of the remaining amount is unfair. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should return to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment the amount that the plaintiff should be paid out of the dividend amount. The defendant's claim has the right to be paid in preference to the plaintiff's claim and the seizure based on the defendant's claim was made prior to the seizure based on the plaintiff'

살피건대, 국민연금법 제81조는 "연금보험료 기타 이 법에 의한 징수금의 징수순위는 국세 및 지방세 다음으로 한다."고 규정하고, 의료보험법 제58조는 "보험료의 징수순위는 국세 및 지방세를 제외한 다른 채권에 우선한다."고 규정하고 있으며, 한편 국민연금보험법 제79조 제3항은 국민연금보험료 기타 국민연금보험법에 의한 징수금의 징수에 관하여, 의료보험법 제56조 제3항은 의료보험료의 징수에 관하여 각 보건복지부장관의 승인을 얻어 국세체납처분의 예에 의한다는 취지로 규정하고 있는바, 위 규정들을 종합적으로 고려하면, 국민연금보험료 등의 징수 순위와 의료보험료의 징수 순위는 국세 및 지방세의 다음 순위로서 동일하다고 보아야 할 것이고, 국세기본법 제36조는 "① 국세의 체납처분에 의하여 납세자의 재산을 압류한 경우에 다른 국세, 가산금, 체납처분비 또는 지방세의 교부청구가 있은 때에는 압류에 관계되는 국세, 가산금 또는 체납처분비는 교부청구한 다른 국세, 가산금, 체납처분비와 지방세에 우선하여 징수한다. ② 지방세의 체납처분에 의하여 납세자의 재산을 압류한 경우에 국세, 가산금 또는 체납처분비의 교부청구를 한 때에는 교부청구한 국세, 가산금과 체납처분비는 압류에 관계되는 지방세의 다음 순위로 징수한다."고 규정하여 이른바 압류선착주의를 선언하고 있으나 압류선착주의는 국세기본법 및 국제징수법과 이 법들을 준용하는 지방세법에 의한 체납처분절차 내에서 적용되는 것일 뿐, 이 사건과 같은 민사소송법에 의한 강제경매절차에는 적용되지 아니한다고 할 것이어서 원고와 피고는 그 채권의 수액에 비례하여 평등하게 배당받는다고 할 것이므로 피고는 위 배당받은 금액 중 원고가 배당받을 금 1,420,495원{＝2,058,441×14,120,390/(14,120,390＋6,341,470)；배당할 금액×원고의 채권액/(원고의 채권액＋피고의 채권액), 원 미만 버림}을 부당이득으로서 원고에게 반환할 의무가 있다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from February 23, 1997 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment as requested by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court below with different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendant to pay the above money.

Judges Cho Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)