[1] In a case where a person can seek a return of unjust enrichment or cancellation of ownership transfer registration made by an administrative disposition by a direct civil action, whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition (negative)

[2] The initial date of the request for review under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the initial date of the request for review against seizure

[3] The case holding that where a notice of demand and a notice of attachment under the National Tax Collection Act are sent to a taxpayer's domicile on the resident registration card that the taxpayer does not reside by ordinary mail, a request period for review on the seizure and disposition of public auction did not expire on the ground that

[1] In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relation subject to the lawsuit, and thereby, it is necessary and appropriate to confirm the existence of the legal relation by a judgment because the plaintiff's right or legal status is unstable and dangerous. Thus, even if a tax disposition and a seizure disposition are null and void, if it can be claimed to return the amount of tax appropriated by a disposition for arrears directly due to a civil procedure to unjust enrichment, or to seek cancellation of a transfer of ownership registered in the third party's future by a disposition for arrears, the above taxation disposition and seizure and public sale disposition cannot be considered as a direct, effective and appropriate method to seek confirmation of invalidity of the disposition, and thus, there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

[2] Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a request for review shall be made within 60 days from the date when the taxpayer becomes aware of the relevant disposition (the date when a disposition notice is received). In accordance with the above provision, a request for review shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the taxpayer becomes aware of the disposition or a person other than the person who is provided to receive the notice of disposition pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes. However, in the case of a person who is provided to receive the notice of disposition pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the taxpayer becomes aware of the disposition. In the case of a person who is provided to receive the notice of disposition or a person who is provided to receive the notice of disposition pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date when the disposition is notified. Meanwhile, the seizure disposition pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act provides that the taxpayer shall be the counterpart of the disposition, and Article 24 (4) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the taxpayer

[3] The case holding that where a notice of demand and a notice of attachment under the National Tax Collection Act are sent to a taxpayer's domicile on the resident registration card that the taxpayer does not reside by ordinary mail, the request period for review on the seizure and disposition of public auction did not expire on the ground that he

[1] Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 24(4) of the National Tax Collection Act / [3] Articles 8(1), 10(1) and (2), and 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 24(4) of the National Tax Collection Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3397 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1690), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu3840 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 2551), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu4383 delivered on September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2914) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu7 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1408), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4698 delivered on June 30, 195 (Gong195Ha, 262), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu39898 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong397Nu3983989, Nov. 39, 198)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the National Tax Service and one other (Law Firm Seosan, Attorneys Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 96Gu3263 delivered on February 3, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. Ex officio determination as to a request for confirmation of invalidity of a defense detailed and disposition, seizure, and a request for confirmation of invalidity of a public auction disposition;

With respect to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of an administrative disposition, the benefit of confirmation is a dispute between the parties regarding the legal relationship subject to it, and the confirmation of the existence of the legal relationship by judgment is necessary and appropriate to eliminate the above anxiety and risk because the plaintiff's rights or legal status is unstable and dangerous.

In this case, on April 15, 1994, the director of the Korea Assets Management Corporation issued the detailed and detailed defense disposition of 52,058,250 won against the plaintiff on May 27, 1996, but ordered to reduce the tax amount of 104,360 won on May 27, 1996, and attached four parcels of land owned by the plaintiff on September 1, 1994 as a result of the disposition on default on the defense tax originally imposed, and then requested the Korea Assets Management Corporation to sell them by public auction from May 25, 1995 to July 27 of the same year, 195, and appropriated the reduced tax amount with the initial tax amount. The land sold by the defendant Korea Assets Management Corporation was considered to have completed the ownership transfer registration for the third party, and it can not be deemed to have been declared that the above disposition on March 19, 198 was effective and void as a civil lawsuit or that the above disposition on March 19, 1998 was declared invalid and void.

Nevertheless, the court below made a decision on the merits with the focus on this point. The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the interest of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking nullification of an administrative disposition, or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the claim for revocation of seizure and public auction disposition

The court below rejected the claim for the cancellation of the attachment and the public auction disposition of this case filed on September 14, 1995, since the plaintiff knew of the fact that the attachment disposition of this case was made around March 30, 1995, and the claim for the cancellation of the attachment and the public auction disposition of this case filed on September 14, 1995, which was 60 days after the lapse of 60 days thereafter, on the ground that the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation

Article 61 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a request for examination shall be made within 60 days from the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which a person becomes aware of the relevant disposition, and in cases of a person other than the party to the disposition or a person who is provided to receive a notice of disposition pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, the deadline for request shall be calculated on the basis of the date on which the person becomes aware of the relevant disposition. However, in cases of the other party to the disposition or a person provided to receive a notice of disposition pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes, the period shall be calculated on the basis of the date on which the notice of disposition

However, a disposition of seizure under the National Tax Collection Act provides that when a taxpayer does not fully pay national taxes within the designated period even after receiving a written demand notice, the taxpayer becomes the other party to the disposition, and Article 24(4) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when a taxpayer’s property is seized, the head of a tax office shall notify the taxpayer in writing. Thus, a taxpayer’s request against a disposition of seizure constitutes a person who is provided for in the Acts and subordinate statutes to receive a notice of disposition pursuant to the said Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall be calculated on the basis

In this case, when the notice of tax payment was returned to the plaintiff, the notice was served by public notice pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act, and the notice of demand and the notice of attachment were sent to the plaintiff's domicile on the resident registration of the plaintiff's non-resident, and there is no other evidence to deem that the seizure disposition of this case was notified to the plaintiff. Thus, the request for review of the seizure and the public sale disposition of this case filed by the plaintiff on September 14, 1995 can be legally filed unless there are other other circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the plaintiff knew of the attachment disposition of this case around March 30, 1995, and that the request for review of the attachment and public auction disposition of this case was filed after the lapse of 60 days from that time. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, all of the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)