Whether Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the disposition on default under the National Tax Collection Act.

The public official in charge of disposition on default shall give priority to the payment of the money realized by the disposition on default of national taxes to related national taxes, etc., and return the remaining amount to the delinquent taxpayer if any, the Article 589 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act shall not be applied to the disposition on default governed by the principle of priority, and therefore the remaining amount shall not

Article 5 of the former National Tax Collection Act, Article 49 of the former National Tax Collection Act, Article 92 (1) of the former National Tax Collection Act, Article 589 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Gwangju District Court Decision 72Na95 delivered on November 8, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

In full view of the provisions of Articles 49 and 92(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, and Article 155 of the Regulations on the Collection of National Taxes (Financial Directive No. 45), all of the provisions of Article 49, Article 92(1) of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 155 of the Regulations on the Collection of National Taxes, the related national taxes, etc. shall be preferentially appropriated from the money realized by the disposition of national taxes in arrears, and if there is the remainder, this money should be returned to the delinquent taxpayer. Even if there is a creditor of provisional attachment on the property for which the disposition of arrears was taken, the public official in charge of disposition in arrears should not deposit the money with the court for the provisional attachment creditor. This is because the provisions of Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act apply only to cases where compulsory execution and provisional attachment are concurrent under the principle of equality

Therefore, it cannot be employed to discuss that the provisions of Article 155 of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 45 conflict with Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act and are invalid. The court below did not err by misapprehending the provisions of Articles 49 and 92(1) of the National Tax Collection Act as the arguments attack.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)