Procedures for litigation on seizure and public auction as delinquent national taxes in arrears

The attachment registration and public auction disposition conducted by the head of the defendant Msan-gu as a part of the disposition of national tax in arrears are administrative dispositions under the National Tax Collection Act, and thus seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition can be subject to administrative litigation, but it is not subject to civil litigation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 24 and 61 of the National Tax Collection Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan District Court Masan Branch Court (75 Mahap429)

The plaintiff's main claim in the trial shall be dismissed, and the conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In the trial, the original judgment is invalidated because the plaintiff has changed the purport of the claim in exchange for it.

On June 7, 1975, the plaintiff requested the court below to change the purport of the claim to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of seizure registration in accordance with the same attachment registration in accordance with the Busan District Court Registry No. 3345 on June 7, 1975 on the real estate recorded in the attached list, and it is confirmed that the defendant's disposal of the real estate recorded in the attached list to the non-party 2 on October 25, 1975 by public auction under the National Tax Collection Act is null and void.

As a preliminary claim, the Defendant is seeking to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from October 26, 1975 to the date of full payment. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On October 19, 1974, the real estate recorded in the attached list was owned by Nonparty 1, and the provisional registration was made under the name of the plaintiff was made on October 19, 1974 as the receipt of the Busan District Court Branch Registry of the Republic of Busan District Court, and on June 24, 1976, the registration was made on October 24, 1974 on the ground of sale on October 19, 1974, and the head of the Busan District Tax Office received the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the plaintiff, and on June 7, 1975, at the time when the provisional registration was made under the name of the plaintiff on the above real estate, he did not dispute the registration of transfer of ownership between the parties to the above disposition of transfer of ownership as the public sale on the ground that the above real estate was conducted under the name of the plaintiff on June 7, 1975, the total amount of personal and business income taxes imposed on the non-party 1 and its additional taxes amounting to KRW 95,1645.

The plaintiff's attorney first purchased this real estate, which was originally owned by the non-party 1, as its principal claim, and completed a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer on October 19, 1974, and then completed the provisional registration on June 24, 1974. Accordingly, this real estate is owned by the plaintiff, and the above public sale disposition on the real estate owned by the plaintiff is null and void as it is a disposition on default against the non-party 1, and thus, it is argued that the above public sale disposition on the real estate owned by the non-party 1 is null and void. Thus, it is argued that the above public sale disposition on the real estate held by the non-party 1 as part of the disposition on default of national taxes is an administrative disposition under the National Tax Collection Act itself, and thus, it can be subject to administrative litigation, but it is not subject to civil litigation. Accordingly, the plaintiff's main claim for nullification of the above disposition is dismissed.

Then, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserts that, as the preliminary claim was made on October 25, 1975, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 1 on October 19, 1974 and made a registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 1975, thereby losing the Plaintiff’s ownership. As such, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserts that, on the ground of tort, the Plaintiff sought payment of the amount of KRW 1,00,000 at the market price of the instant real estate and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Procedure Act from October 26, 1975 where the said provisional registration under the name of the Plaintiff lost its ownership, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Nonparty 1 on October 19, 1974 and examined the provisional registration made to preserve the claim for ownership transfer registration.

The evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, which corresponds to the assertion that the plaintiff entered into a pre-contract for the sale and purchase of the real estate and made a provisional registration on the above date for the purpose of preserving ownership, shall not be trusted in light of the following evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, if the statement No. 1, which can be recognized as the authenticity by Non-Party 1’s testimony by the witness of the trial court, combines part of the testimony of the same high rate as the testimony of the above witness, the non-party 1, who entered into an agreement from the plaintiff on October 19, 1974, borrowed 1,00,000 won from the plaintiff as of the end of April 1, 1975, and as the meaning of the security of the claim against it, the fact that the establishment of collateral security was completed on the same date as the above provisional registration, and the non-party thereafter, did not repay his obligation on the date of the above provisional registration.

If so, the provisional registration and the principal registration of the Plaintiff’s name were made for the above claim security, and the Plaintiff is the mortgagee to this real estate. Article 42 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “If the taxpayer fails to pay national taxes, additional dues, or expenses for disposition on default, and the taxpayer has any property transferred for security, any national taxes, additional dues, and expenses for disposition on default may be collected from the taxpayer with such property under the conditions as prescribed by the National Tax Collection Act only if the amount to be collected is short of the amount to be collected even after the disposition on default is conducted on other property of the taxpayer: Provided, That this provision does not apply to any property transferred for security which becomes the object of security one year prior to the due date for national taxes payment.” According to the testimony of Nonparty 1, the property transferred for security in Paragraph 1 provides that “if the taxpayer transfers the property under a contract between the parties concerned, it refers to the property substantially becomes the object of the security for claims to the transferor, and thus, the above tax office does not have any specific reason to dispose of the property before the due date for sale.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection claim for the confirmation of invalidity of the above public auction disposition is dismissed as unlawful and without a legitimate title. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages is dismissed as well as the plaintiff's conjunctive claim for damages on the ground of tort on the ground that the above public auction disposition was conducted without a legitimate title. The original judgment was invalidated as the plaintiff changed the purport of the claim in exchange for the purport of the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Jae-dae (Presiding Judge)