Whether the previous address is a tort at the request of public auction

The fact that the delinquent's address is mistakenly stated on the request for the public sale by proxy is a tort that causes liability for damages.

Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 1,232,285 won with 5% interest per annum from April 4, 2006 to December 28, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts through the first instance and the second instance, and one shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 10 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff has reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 2002. 5. 31. 2001년에 발생한 학습지 소매업에 대한 사업소득 및 임대사업에 대한 부동산 임대소득에 대하여 종합소득세액 1,736,281원을 신고하였으나 위 종합소득세를 납부하지 아니하여, 피고 대한민국 산하 ★★세무서장은 납부기한을 2002. 9. 27.로 하여 미납가산세를 가산한 1,793,570원의 납부를 고지하였고, 2001년 귀속분 종합소득세 중간예납분에 대하여 납부기한을 2002. 11. 30.로 하여 1,102,400원의 납부를 고지하였으나, 원고가 위 각 세금을 납부하지 아니하여 가산금을 더한 합계 3,813,340원의 체납액이 발생하였다.

나. 이에 ★★세무서장은 2003. 11. 4. 구 국세징수법(2003.12.30 법률 제7004호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제24조 제1항1)에 따라 원고 소유의 ○○시 ○○면 ○○리 735 전2691㎡ 중 4분의 1지분(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다.)을 압류하였고, 2004. 9. 21. 구 국세징수법(2005. 3. 31. 법률 제7428호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 구 국세징수법이라고 한다.) 제61조2)에 따라 피고 한국자산관리공사(이하 '피고 공사'라 한다.) ○○지사에게 이 사건 토지에 대하여 공매를 의뢰하였다.

C. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 67(3) of the former National Tax Collection Act, the Defendant Corporation commenced a public auction procedure after publicly announcing the instant land in accordance with the public auction procedure, and the appraisal of the instant land was made at KRW 5,045,625 on November 3, 2004 at the time of the price, and the appraisal was made at KRW 5,045,625 on February 17, 2005, and the sale was decided at KRW 3,131,000 on KRW 3,131,00 on March 9, 2005.

D. On the other hand, from January 25, 200, the plaintiff was registered as ○○○○ Dong 4567-45 (hereinafter referred to as 'the present address of the plaintiff') from January 25, 200 to 4567-45 (hereinafter referred to as 'the present address of the plaintiff'). On the other hand, from April 10, 1999, the plaintiff was registered as ○○○○ Dong 4663 Dong 104 Dong 204 (hereinafter referred to as 'the previous address of the plaintiff').

마. 그런데 ★★세무서장이 피고 공사에게 발행한 공매대행의뢰서4)의 원고의 주소지란에는 원고의 종전 주소가 기재되어 있었고, 피고 공사는 구 국세징수법 제68조5)에 의하여 위 다항과 같이 공매공고를 하면서 그 무렵 공매통지서를 공매대행의뢰서에 기재된 원고의 종전 주소지로 등기우편6)의 방법으로 발송하였다. 이에 대한 우편물 배달증명(을나 제4, 5호증)에는 2004. 12. 10. 원고의 배우자이고 이름이 김◎◎이라고 칭하는 사람이 이를 수령한 것으로 기재되어 있는바, 김◎◎은 원고의 전처 김◇◇(2002. 1. 18. 이혼)의 이모이다.

[Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 3, and 4-1 to 9-6 of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5-1, 2, Eul's Evidence Nos. 2, 4, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul's Evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-2, and 6-2 of Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, and 5]

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, when the defendant corporation conducts a public auction, it shall notify the delinquent taxpayer of statutory matters, such as the date, time, place, etc. of the public auction. The notice of the public auction shall be given by means of delivering the notice of the public auction to the delinquent taxpayer and, in principle, by means of delivery to the delinquent taxpayer or registered mail. In such cases, if the service is not conducted at the place to be served, the document may be delivered to the employee or other employee or a person living together with

However, the Defendant Corporation sent the public auction notice of this case to the Plaintiff’s previous domicile according to the statement of the public auction agency request prepared and sent by the Defendant Republic of Korea. The dividend certification of the public auction notice of this case is deemed to have been received by Nonparty 1, not the Plaintiff’s spouse or a person living together. However, the public auction procedure of this case was conducted on the basis of this without properly verifying the legitimacy of the above notice. If the above public auction notice was served to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could have known the above public auction fact if he had been served to the Plaintiff, and thereby, the Plaintiff could have been paid the amount of arrears and disposition fees for arrears and suspended the public auction procedure and preserved the ownership of the real estate of this case). As such, due to the error in the request for the public auction and notice of the public auction by the Defendant Republic of Korea and the staff in charge of the Defendant Corporation, the Plaintiff was eventually unable to know the fact of the progress of the above public auction procedure, thereby

B. The defendants' assertion

(1) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that Defendant Republic of Korea shall not be liable for damages to Defendant Republic of Korea, even if Defendant Republic of Korea’s employees erroneously stated the Plaintiff’s address in the written request for public sale by proxy, Defendant Corporation could have confirmed it and corrected it easily. However, Defendant Corporation did not deliver the instant notice of public sale to the Plaintiff by negligence, even if Defendant Corporation is liable for damages.

(2) The Defendant Corporation asserts that the notice of the instant public auction was sent by registered mail pursuant to the relevant statutes, and that the Plaintiff’s spouse was confirmed by the delivery donation and the Defendant Corporation’s employee could not be deemed to be negligent since knives were confirmed to have received knives of the Plaintiff’s spouse and continued the public auction procedure without being followed.

(3) In addition, even if the Defendants were to notify the interested parties of the date, place, method, etc. of the public auction under the National Tax Collection Act, they asserted that such notification is not a requirement of the public auction, but merely notifying the delinquent taxpayers themselves of the fact of the public auction, and thus, even if the public auction was made without such notification, the public auction disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course.

C. Determination

(1) Whether delivery of the notice of public auction in this case is lawful

As seen earlier, according to Articles 8 and 10 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the notice of public auction of this case shall be served by registered mail on the Plaintiff’s “ domicile, temporary domicile, or place of business”. The notice of public auction of this case was served to the previous domicile, not at the Plaintiff’s present domicile, and otherwise, it is illegal to serve the notice of public auction of this case, unless there are circumstances that the previous domicile was the Plaintiff’

(2) Whether Defendant employees were negligent

According to the above facts, the defendant Corporation's service illegal due to the previous domicile which is not the present domicile of the plaintiff is due to the negligence of the plaintiff's previous domicile in the request for public sale agency even though the employee of the defendant Republic of Korea can easily confirm the plaintiff's present domicile through the plaintiff's resident registration copy or the computer network of the National Tax Integration System of the National Tax Service.

Meanwhile, even if the employee of the defendant Corporation falsely delivered the notice of public auction of this case to the plaintiff's previous domicile according to the statement of the above public auction agency request, if the service by registered mail of this case is stated in the delivery certificate that he can serve the document to his employee, other employee, or a person living together with the plaintiff's previous domicile, and if the Kim Manum's document is indicated in the delivery certificate as the plaintiff's spouse, the employee of the defendant Corporation can easily confirm the documents by the plaintiff's spouse or living together with the plaintiff's resident registration, the plaintiff's resident registration certificate, the National Tax Service's computer network, etc., and if Kim Man's document was confirmed, if Kim Man' was not the plaintiff's living together with the plaintiff's family, the public auction procedure can be conducted only once after confirming the transfer of the plaintiff's domicile, and the copy of the register of this case's land of this case stated the plaintiff's current address and it did not go through the verification procedure.

(3) The causal relationship between the negligence of Defendant employees and the Plaintiff’s damage

Article 66 of the former National Tax Collection Act provides that no delinquent taxpayer may purchase the attached property directly or indirectly. However, if a delinquent taxpayer fully pays the delinquent tax amount, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default even after the decision on sale was made in the public sale procedure, the procedure for public sale shall be suspended and the decision on sale already made shall be revoked (Article 71 of the former National Tax Collection Act). Thus, the delinquent taxpayer may pay the delinquent tax amount and preserve the ownership of the real estate until the purchaser pays the purchase price in the public sale procedure. Furthermore, the purpose of the disposition on default is only to take heavy taxes in arrears by national enforcement, and the purpose of the disposition on default is to notify the delinquent taxpayer of the public sale, and the former National Tax Collection Act provides that the delinquent taxpayer shall not lose his/her property right. In full view of the above legal principles, it cannot be said that the reason for notifying the delinquent taxpayer of the public sale is not considered to have the delinquent taxpayer have an opportunity to preserve ownership by suspending and cancelling the procedure for public sale (see Supreme Court Decision 202Da4232, Oct. 25, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, there is a proximate causal relation between the negligence that employees of the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of legitimate public auction and the damages caused by the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership of the instant land.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the market price of the land of this case at the time when the plaintiff lost ownership is KRW 10 million, the defendants are obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the above amount to each plaintiff, or even if the value of the land of this case is recognized as KRW 50,45,625 according to the appraisal result conducted in the public sale procedure, the plaintiff is obligated to pay for damages exceeding nine million won to the plaintiff at least in the course of the lawsuit of this case.

B. The defendants' assertion

The defendants asserted that the damages caused by the plaintiff's loss of ownership to the land of this case shall be KRW 3,131,00,00, which is the proceeds from the public sale of the land of this case, at the time of the public sale of the land of this case, as KRW 5,045,625, or KRW 3,131,00,00.

C. Determination

(1) It is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s loss due to the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership of the instant land as the objective price of the instant land at the time of the public auction. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is not acceptable, on the grounds that there is no evidence as to the fact that the market price of the instant land at the time of the public auction is KRW 10 million. However, since the Plaintiff’s loss due to the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership should be deducted or offset, 1,232,285 won (=5,045,625 - 3,813,340 won should be deducted or offset, the Plaintiff’s loss should be deemed as the Plaintiff’s loss.

(2) On the other hand, there is no benefit to seek reimbursement within this part of the claim for damages equivalent to the costs of lawsuit, such as attorney fees for the lawsuit of this case claimed as preliminary, since the amount paid as the costs of lawsuit can be repaid after the final conclusion of the lawsuit of this case after the final conclusion of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, this part of the allegation is rejected.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendants, the joint tortfeasors, are liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from April 4, 2006 to December 28, 2007, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, as damages for damages incurred to each Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, with 5% per annum under the Civil Act until December 28, 2007, which is the date of adjudication of the appellate court of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims of this case against the defendants of this case is unfair, the plaintiff's appeal is partially accepted and it is revoked, and the defendants are ordered to pay the above amount. Since the remaining parts are legitimate, each of the remaining appeals against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

* Note *

1) The tax official shall seize the taxpayer’s properties in any of the following cases:

* Note *

2) The head of a tax office shall place the attached movables, securities, real estate, intangible property rights, and things (excluding currency) received by subrogation from a delinquent taxpayer under Article 41 (2) in a public auction under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That when the head of a tax office deems it necessary to have expertise in the public auction of the attached property or when it is inappropriate to do so directly due to other special circumstances, he/she may have the Korea Asset Management Corporation established under the Act on the Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Non-Performing Assets (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea

* Note *

(3) The public auction shall be conducted by bidding or auction (including that through the information and communications network under subparagraph 18 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

* Note *

4) Article 68-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19239 of Dec. 30, 2005)

* Note *

5) When the chief of the tax office makes a public notice under Article 97(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, he shall immediately notify the delinquent taxpayer, the owner of the security for tax payment, and the person having the right of lease on a deposit basis, pledge, mortgage

* Note *

6) The former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 7329, Jan. 5, 2005; hereinafter the former Framework Act on National Taxes)

* Note *

7) Article 71 of the former National Tax Collection Act.