Pakistan Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Dong-sub, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Attorney Kim Young-sub et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 21, 2005

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant sought the revocation of the public auction disposition on November 24, 2004, as stated in the separate sheet, concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Each public sale disposition of November 24, 2004 and February 16, 2005 and each sale decision of March 17, 2005 rendered by the defendant with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 16, 2004, the Defendant requested a public auction of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) attached by the Plaintiff based on the delinquent local tax of KRW 18,501,030, etc. from the Chungcheong mayor. On September 8, 2004, the Defendant, on September 8, 2004, determined the estimated sale price as the first estimated sale price ( July 5, 2004 on the date of appraisal), which is the appraised amount of each of the instant real estate, as indicated below, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the bid and opening schedule by reducing 10% of the said estimated sale price by up to 50% of the said estimated sale price as listed below.

On October 12, 204: 10: 00 to October 13, 2004, 17: 11:00 on October 14, 2004; 10: 10: 7,454,314,00 on October 19, 204; 10: 0 to 17: 00 on October 204; 17: 00 on October 204; 17: 00 on October 21, 2004; 11: 006, 708, 83, 000 on October 26, 200 on October 204; 10 to 3: 104 on October 21, 2004;

B. The Defendant shall determine a new estimated sale price pursuant to Article 9(4) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 9(4) of the Guidelines for Dealing with the Vicarious Sale of Attached Property established by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 24, 2004, in which the bidder had no bidder at least six times pursuant to the above schedule: Provided, That in cases where the sale is not made even if the amount reaches 50/100 of the first estimated sale price, the new estimated sale price shall be determined pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2): Provided, That in cases where the date of re-auction is within one year from the date of appraisal by an appraisal by an appraisal business operator and there is no reason for a sudden change in the price after the date of the last auction, 50/100 of the first estimated sale price shall be determined as a new estimated sale price after consultation with the head of a tax office, and the said estimated sale price shall be 10/100 of the first estimated sale price shall be re-determined as the first estimated sale price, and in preparation for cases where there is no bidder at least.

On December 21, 2004, 10: 00 to December 22, 2004, 17: 11:00 on December 23, 2004, the second 10:0 to 00 on January 4, 2005, from 17:0 to 00 on January 5, 2005, 11: 00 to 05: 00 on January 6, 2005, 11: 00 on January 6, 2005, 11: 00 to 05: 00 on January 6, 2005, 205; 11: 354, 42,00 on March 10 to 11, 205; 19: 10 to 18:5 on January 10, 2005;

C. However, on February 16, 2005, the Plaintiff again determined the new estimated sale price at KRW 1,863,579,000, which is equivalent to 50% of the estimated sale price of re-auction in accordance with the above provisions, as indicated in the following table, and then publicly announced the bidding and opening schedule on the Internet, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. thereof (hereinafter “the auction disposition on February 16, 2005”).

The estimated sale price of March 15, 2005 between 10:00 to 16:00 on March 17, 2005, 11:00 on March 17, 2005, and the estimated sale price of March 15, 2005 for the first time of opening the Internet bidding period of the tickets contained in the main sentence.

D. In the process of re-auction, the Defendant: (a) bid at KRW 1,917,311,150 for the bid price at the bid price at the time of the bid; and (b) decided on March 17, 2005 to sell each of the instant real estate to the said company (hereinafter “instant sale decision”); and (c) on March 17, 2005, the Defendant decided to sell the instant real estate to the said company.

[Grounds for Recognition of Facts: The parties to a dispute or the purport of Gap evidence 1-1-2, 2, 3, 1-2, 3-1 through 5, 4-2, 3-2, and 3-2]

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the public auction disposition on November 24, 2004 is legitimate

According to Article 20(1) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, a revocation lawsuit shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the disposition, etc. is known, and the above period is a peremptory term. As seen earlier, the defendant determined the estimated sale price and bidding schedule with respect to each real estate of this case on November 24, 2004 and notified the plaintiff of the disposition for the public auction at that time. Thus, it seems that the plaintiff was aware of the above disposition around that time. Thus, it is apparent that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above disposition from the plaintiff to March 28, 2005, where the period of filing the lawsuit exceeds 90 days under the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the part seeking the revocation of the above disposition among the lawsuit of this case, which was filed after the lapse of the period of filing the lawsuit, is unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition of public sale on February 16, 2005 of this case and the decision of sale of this case are legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) In accordance with Article 74 of the National Tax Collection Act, a public auction cannot be conducted for less than 50% of the initial estimated sale price. In the disposition of the public auction on February 16, 2005 of this case, the defendant determined the price of 25% of the initial estimated sale price as the estimated sale price, and made the decision of the sale of this case at a price less than 50% of the initial estimated sale price as a result of the process of the public auction, each of the above dispositions is unlawful.

(2) The method of selling the attached property by proxy is merely an internal procedure of the administrative agency, and therefore, there is no legal basis for the Defendant to determine the original estimated sale price of 25% of the estimated sale price as the estimated sale price of February 16, 2005. Thus, the re-auction disposition on the above date is unlawful.

(3) The Plaintiff intended to take the procedure of cancelling the sale by paying the local tax in arrears and expenses for disposition on default with the buyer’s consent after the decision on the sale. However, the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff of the purchaser’s personal information, but did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s efforts by receiving the sale price from the buyer even if 40 days or more have yet to elapse, thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s efforts by completing the public sale procedure

(4) The Plaintiff’s disposal of each of the instant real estate at a lower price than 1/4 of the appraised value violates the Plaintiff’s property right, and thus, the instant sales decision is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) According to the previous Article 74(4) of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 6053, Dec. 28, 1999); where there is no bidder or bidder even at the second public auction of the attached property, the estimated sale price shall be reduced by 10/100 of the estimated sale price every time the attached property is sold from the next public auction to the limit of the amount corresponding to 50/100 of the estimated sale price; where the estimated sale price is not sold even after the decrease of the amount corresponding to 50/100 of the initial estimated sale price, it shall not be re-auction less than 50/100 of the estimated sale price at the first public auction and it shall be sold through a free contract (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8236, Dec. 28, 199; Supreme Court Decision 50/100 of the estimated sale price at the same time as amended by Act No. 6598, Jan. 1, 200>

Therefore, it cannot be said that it violated the National Tax Collection Act only with the reason that the bid price less than 50/100 of the initial estimated sale price was determined as the estimated sale price and disposed of again, or that the bid price was decided as the price less than 50/100 of the initial estimated sale price was determined as the estimated sale price.

(2) According to Article 63 of the National Tax Collection Act, even in case of re-auction conducted when the proceeds of the auction are not sold even after the decrease in the amount corresponding to 50/100 of the expected sale price, the head of a tax office has the authority to determine the estimated sale price of the attached property, and when it is difficult to determine the estimated sale price, he/she may request an appraiser to appraise it, and refer to the value thereof. Meanwhile, according to Article 9(4) of the Guidelines for Handling Agency Sale of the attached property as set by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, if the proceeds of re-auction are not sold even if it reaches 50/100 of the estimated sale price, it shall be within one year from the date of appraisal by the appraisal by the appraisal business operator, and if the price is not changed rapidly after the date of the first auction, 50

The method of handling the above attached property by proxy is that if the property subject to public auction is not sold even if it reaches 50/100 of the estimated sale price for the first time, the criteria for handling affairs to determine the new estimated sale price pursuant to Article 63 of the National Tax Collection Act, and it does not have any legal effect binding inside the administrative agency, which is binding upon the people or the court. Therefore, the legality of the disposition is not determined depending on the difference between the above disposal and the above disposal standards.

However, since the head of the tax office set the principle that the estimated sale price for re-auction shall be followed in newly determining the estimated sale price of the asset which is not sold even if it reaches 50/100 of the initial estimated sale price, its contents are rational (the initial estimated sale price shall be at least the estimated sale price above the estimated sale price), the defendant who performed the tax office on behalf of the head of the tax office set the new estimated sale price according to the above criteria based on Article 63(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

(3) The defendant is not obligated to notify the purchaser's personal information after the decision of sale, or is not entitled to refuse to receive the purchase price prior to the payment deadline, and there are no other circumstances to deem that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's legitimate efforts concerning the cancellation of the sale decision of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

(4) In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant continued the auction procedure for each of the instant real estate with the initial appraisal price as the estimated sale price, but the auction was conducted by setting a new estimated sale price pursuant to Article 74 of the National Tax Collection Act, even though the bid was continued six times at the same time, and the reauction was conducted by setting a new estimated sale price pursuant to the above provision, and the auction was conducted at the same time once again once again, and as a result, the Defendant had sold each of the instant real estate to the Non-party Ssung Fa Co., Ltd., Ltd., which failed to meet the bid price at the above estimated sale price, so the Defendant continued the auction procedure in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act, and even if each of the said real estate was sold at a low price, it cannot be said that the decision on

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking the cancellation of the public auction disposition on November 24, 2004 among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the remaining claims are dismissed without any justifiable reasons.

[Attachment Form Omission of Indication of Real Estate]

Judges Shin Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)