A. Whether a seizure disposition taken against the donor's property in a state where the donor did not notify the donor of the payment (negative)

B. Whether a seizure which was initially null and void, and whether it is converted into a valid one on the ground that the delinquent amount has occurred after the registration of the seizure (negative)

C. Effect of a public auction disposition based on an invalid attachment disposition

A. The gift tax law only provides a notice for payment pursuant to Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act to the donor, but no other legitimate tax assessment exists without a tax payment notice pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act. In such a case, a seizure disposition against the donor’s property by exercising the right of collection by the head of a tax office is deemed null and void as the defect is significant and apparent.

B. Under Article 47(2) of the National Tax Collection Act, the attachment is premised on the effective existence of the attachment in order to realize the validity of the delinquent amount which occurred after the registration of the attachment. In a case where the attachment is null and void from the original time, the attachment does not immediately be converted into validity as the attachment for the delinquent amount, on the ground that the delinquent amount has occurred after the registration of the attachment.

C. As long as a public auction disposition is null and void, a public auction disposition based on an invalid attachment disposition is null and void, it cannot be deemed null and void only with the fact that the public auction disposition did not raise an objection against it.

A. Article 29-2(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Articles 38 and 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act. Article 24(2)(c) of the National Tax Collection Act. Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 138 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu2120 decided Jun. 14, 1988 (Gong1988,1043), 88Nu3741 decided May 23, 1989 (Gong1989,1010), 89Nu4781 decided Dec. 22, 1989; 89Nu4781 decided Feb. 3, 193)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and three others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na6688 delivered on October 10, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The defendants' attorney and the defendant's intervenor's intervenor's grounds of appeal are examined together.

Article 39 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax Act only provides a notice for payment to a donor pursuant to Article 39 of the same Act, and there is no legitimate taxation without a tax payment notice pursuant to Article 9 of the National Tax Collection Act, and thus, joint and several tax liability for gift tax may not arise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu109, Sept. 23, 1986; 88Nu2120, Jun. 14, 198; 89Nu4781, Dec. 22, 1989). In such a case, a disposition of seizure against a donor’s property by exercising the right to collect tax shall be deemed null and void as it is significant and apparent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu3741, May 23, 1989). In addition, where a seizure takes effect after the registration of the seizure, it shall be deemed null and void immediately after the registration of the initial delinquent amount.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the above disposition of seizure of the real estate owned by the plaintiff on December 22, 1979 was not valid for the non-party 1, who is his own child, and that the above disposition of seizure of the real estate was not valid for the reason that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not pay gift tax to the same non-party 2 on December 30, 1980. The court below held that the above disposition of seizure of the real estate under the name of the above non-party 3 was not valid for the reason that the above disposition of seizure of the real estate was not valid for the reason that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not pay gift tax to the plaintiff on July 15, 1985. The court below held that the above disposition of seizure of the real estate under the name of the above non-party 3, which was not valid for the reason that the above disposition of seizure of the real estate under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 were not liable for joint payment.

According to the records, the above recognition by the court below is just and correct, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effective conversion of invalid registration as to the establishment of joint and several liability for payment of gift tax, which is pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and the theory of lawsuit does not contain any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the valid conversion of invalid registration, and the theory of lawsuit has rejected the judgment by the court below as to the assertion that the invalid registration was converted into a valid registration with a new entity due to the occurrence of a new delinquency after seizure. However, since the ground for the registration of seizure is a seizure as a disposition for arrears on the ground that it is not a fact of delinquency, but a disposition for arrears is a disposition for arrears, so long as the seizure is null and void, the court below's decision that the invalid seizure cannot be converted into a valid registration after the fact of delinquency is asserted in the lawsuit. Thus, as long as the public sale disposition is null and void, the court's decision that points out the theory of lawsuit is just and correct.

In addition, as in the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each ownership transfer registration on the ground that the above above ground building was transferred to the defendants and that the public sale disposition is invalid later is asserted to be only when the court below did not raise any objection at the time of the trial. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each ownership transfer registration is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)