In cases where wage claims with preferential right to payment are included in the subject matter of distribution of the proceeds from the sale of seized property under the National Tax Collection Act, whether the institution in charge of disposition on default shall prepare a distribution statement by ex officio fixing the amount to be distributed to the wage creditors (affirmative), and whether the wage creditors who did not request the distribution of the amount to be distributed to them by the time of distribution can claim the return of unjust enrichment against the subordinated right holder who received the distribution

Article 83(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 35(1)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

Korea Asset Management Corporation (Law Firm Daejeon, Attorneys Han Won-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2004Na6212 Decided April 29, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The latter part of Article 83(1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that “In this case, the person subject to distribution shall request the head of a tax office to distribute the proceeds before preparing a distribution statement.” However, the National Tax Collection Act does not have any provision concerning the status of a person who violates the latter part of the aforementioned provision, while the compulsory execution procedure under the Civil Execution Act aims at the prompt satisfaction of tax claims by an administrative agency. Unlike the Civil Execution Act, the National Tax Collection Act does not provide for the right to demand distribution, the period of notification of the demand for distribution, the period of supplement of the amount of claims due to failure to submit a statement of claims, the scope of creditors entitled to receive the dividends, and the procedure of raising objections to distribution, the subsequent part of the aforementioned provision does not stipulate that the subsequent part of the same Article excludes the subsequent distribution statement until the preparation of the distribution statement, and thus, the subsequent part of the same Article does not require the junior creditor to distribute the proceeds of distribution ex officio until the distribution statement is made (see Article 35(1)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes or additional charges.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the evidence adopted in its judgment. Even if the plaintiff, the subrogation of wage claim, failed to demand distribution until the sale price of attached property was distributed in the public sale procedure of this case, and distributed the amount to the defendant, the plaintiff can seek return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the defendant, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the request for distribution under the National Tax Collection Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)