Cases where the assertion on the defects of administrative disposition is deemed to have been waived;

If the Defendants filed a claim for refund of the remaining amount appropriated as the delinquent taxes and the delinquent taxes, out of the proceeds from the public sale, and received them, then the Defendants’ invalidation of the public sale disposition shall not be deemed to be in violation of the good faith and good faith principle.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 139 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na627 delivered on June 18, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na627 delivered on July 18, 1969

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below was the real estate listed in the annexed Table 2 attached to the judgment in this case owned by the deceased non-party 1. The non-party 1 is deemed to have died on June 30, 195 by the adjudication of disappearance of the Seoul District Court on March 3, 1962. The defendant 1 is the wife of the above deceased, and the other defendant is the deceased's child, and the non-party 2 is the head of the above defendant, and there is no dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the above real estate is deemed to be the death of the above non-party 1, and the defendants and the above non-party 2 jointly inherited, and the above real estate is not subject to dispute, and the above evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 2, 14, and the whole purport of the party's argument in the above evidence No. 14, the head of Dongdaemun Tax Office explained on March 13, 1963 that the above property acquired the ownership of the property of the non-party 2 in the public auction and it could not be acknowledged.

(1) On the other hand, the above Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 is a copy of the register of the land of this case as cited by the court below. (a) If the country is considered to be related to the above facts, it is stated that it filed an application for the registration of ownership transfer due to the inheritance in Australia with the former owner No. 1 to the non-party No. 2 for the purpose of preserving the claim of 529,987 won, and (b) the country was liable for the registration of ownership transfer due to the disposition of tax arrears on July 2 of the same year. (2) The above evidence No. 2 was the defendants of this case and the non-party No. 2 were the plaintiff and the non-party Nos. 65-76, which were the plaintiff and the non-party No. 1 to whom the above disposition of ownership transfer was issued to the non-party No. 2, who was not an administrator of the above tax office to whom the above disposition of ownership transfer was issued by the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 2's. 381.

(3) The above evidence No. 14 is the judgment of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court with respect to the civil litigation case in which the defendants of this case and the above non-party 2 jointly filed a counter-party to the plaintiff of this case. The contents of this case claim that the plaintiff of this case acquired the land of this case through the public auction disposition at the tax office as seen above and completed a successful bid, and the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled on January 20, 1964. The reason is that the disposition imposing gift tax and the public auction disposition are null and void for the same reason in the above administrative litigation, and therefore, the plaintiff of this case should also be cancelled the cause of invalidation.

(4) In addition, the progress of the party’s pleading as shown in the record is based on Defendant 1’s gift tax amounting to KRW 828,860,00, which focuses on whether the disposition of public sale of real estate becomes invalid due to the disposition of default, or whether the Plaintiff is entitled to acquire ownership and file a claim for ownership with the Defendants.

In light of the above evidence and comprehensively taking account of all the following factors, it cannot be found that only 529,987 won delinquent duty imposed on Nonparty 2 and 529,987, as recognized by the court below, could not be found to have been acceptable to the facts of the public auction. Therefore, the original judgment cannot be said to have committed the so-called evidence-based violation of the evidence-based law, which either recognized facts without evidence or found the facts of

In addition, the judgment of the court below seems to be a public auction on the land of this case owned by the defendants since the defendants filed a claim for refund of the bid balance on January 22, 1964, and thus ratification of the above public auction disposition is not possible in accordance with the legal principles of administrative disposition. However, the circumstances of this case are as follows: if the public auction on the property of the deceased non-party 1, the donor of this case was conducted on the basis of the disposition of default of 828,860 won, due to the lack of legal knowledge about the share of inheritance at the tax office, the public auction is conducted formally due to the lack of legal knowledge about the share of inheritance at the tax office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's delivery of gift tax, and if the defendants filed a claim for refund of the remaining amount appropriated for delinquent taxes and disposition fees for arrears from among the proceeds obtained by the public auction and received it, it is not reasonable that the defendants did not present any defect in the above public auction.

Finally, at least in the court below's decision that the public sale of the shares by Defendant 1, who is a delinquent taxpayer, is justified, and therefore, the plaintiff's acquisition of the right to the shares by the plaintiff is justified, and therefore, it is clear that the part of the share register in the name of the defendant should be cancelled (the legal brief on June 17 of the same year stated in the court hearing on September 20, 1967). Since the original judgment has no explanation thereon, there is no violation of law that has neglected the judgment as to the allegations by the parties. As such, the reason for illegality explained has influenced the result of the original judgment, and therefore, the appeal to this point is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)