Effect of attachment disposition as prescribed by the National Tax Collection Act against the school site of a private school ( null and void)

Article 28(2) of the Private School Act and Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act provide that property of a private school established and operated by the relevant school foundation, such as school site, shall not be sold or offered as a security, among the property of the relevant school foundation, shall not be limited to the fact that it cannot be the object of a sales contract, but shall not entirely exclude the possibility of transfer of ownership due to sale and purchase, and it shall not be subject to seizure under the National Tax Collection Act.

Articles 1 and 28(2) of the Private School Act, Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, Article 31 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Order 72Ma330 Dated April 14, 1972 (No. 20-1, 206) 72Ma328 Dated April 27, 1972 (No. 20-1, 251)

Newly Inserted by a school juristic person

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon High Court Decision 95Gu2058 delivered on February 9, 1996

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

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

The purpose of Article 28(2) of the Private School Act and Article 12(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to prevent property of a private school established and operated by the relevant school foundation, which is directly used for the education of the relevant school foundation, from being sold or offered as security, is to prevent the existence of the relevant school by disposing of the school property indispensable for the relevant school education (Article 1). Thus, the prohibition of sale of such property is not limited to the fact that it cannot be the object of a sales contract, but it is prohibited from being sold in accordance with the procedure of disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act because it is clear that seizure under the National Tax Collection Act is not allowed.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the property prohibited from seizure, such as theory of lawsuit, or the invalidation of administrative disposition. There is no ground for all arguments.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)