(a) Details of priority rights to national tax claims;

(b) Estimated payment of national tax claims for the property transferred to a third person from a person liable for duty payment before property is seized upon disposition on default;

Existence of authority

A. The nature of national taxes differs from general claims in that national taxes are established uniformly, selective, and inevitably according to the fulfillment of legal taxation requirements. On the other hand, the principle of national tax preference, which is an exceptional effect on the principle of equality of claims in order to secure the collection of national taxes due to their public interests, is not only deemed unnecessary to register all property owned by taxpayers and to give public notice methods such as pledges, mortgages, etc., but also is also applied in principle to claims secured by security rights such as pledges, mortgages, etc.

B. Since it is natural that the national tax cannot be collected by the property that is not owned by the taxpayer, if the third party acquires the ownership before the property is seized by the disposition on default of national taxes, the right to preferentially collect the national tax can not be sought in principle. However, if the property is designated as the secondary taxpayer in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the National Tax Collection Act, the exception can be recognized.

(a) Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Articles 329 and 356 of the Civil Act. Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 12 of the National Tax Collection Act

The Minister of Justice shall appoint a legal representative of the Republic of Korea

Korea Exchange Bank (Attorney Kim Jae-in, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na4192 delivered on April 15, 1983

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2 were subject to the above 3-party 1 and the above 9-party 1 and the above 7-6-party 1 and the above 7-6-party 2 were subject to the above 9-party 1 and the above 7-6-party 1 and the 9-party 2 were subject to the above 9-party 1 and the above 7-6-party 1 and the above 1-6-party 2 were subject to the above 9-party 1 and the above 1-6-party 1 and the 9-party 2-party 2 were subject to the above 7-party 1 and the 1-6-party 1 and the 1-6-party 3-party 2 were subject to the above 9-party 1 and the above 9-party 2-party 1 and the defendant were not subject to the above 7-party 1 and the same 1- party 4-party 1.

2. Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that national taxes, additional dues, or expenses for disposition on default shall be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims, by declaring the principle of national tax priority, in order to secure the collection of claims based on the nature of the general claims, which is fundamentally different from that of the general claims, and on the other hand, on the one hand, in order to secure the collection of claims through the public interest. This priority is not only recognized as unnecessary for the method of registration or other public notice as to all property owned by the taxpayer, but also its application in principle to claims secured by the security rights such as pledges or mortgages. The granting of such priority to the national taxes is related to the high public interest, and on the other hand, it is established under private law as a matter of principle by contract, and on the other hand, it is established in accordance with the legal requirements for taxation claims, and therefore, it is inevitable to secure the claims, and thus, it is also inevitable to have a conflict between the legal nature of the taxation claims and the interests of the general creditors.

3. As such, the right of preferential collection of national taxes is not only recognized as unnecessary to register all property owned by the taxpayer and give public notice methods, but also it is reasonable that national taxes can not be collected by any property that is not owned by the taxpayer because it is applied in principle to claims secured by security rights such as pledges and mortgages. Therefore, if a third party acquires ownership before the property is seized by the disposition on default of national taxes, the right of preferential collection of national taxes can not be claimed in principle. However, if the taxpayer is designated as the second taxpayer pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes or the National Tax Collection Act, the exception can be recognized.

According to the court below's lawful determination, the ship of this case cannot be collected by the purchase of the purchase of the national tax in accordance with the principle of national tax priority, separate from the fact that the plaintiff, who created a mortgage No. 2 on the ship of this case under the deferment of national tax collection unless there are special circumstances such as the above non-party corporation's physical liability for national tax payment before the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the non-party Corporation's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice transfer of ownership transfer of this case's ship's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's vice company's right of national tax payment and national tax payment. Therefore, the defendant's right of this case's vice company's vice company's vice.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)