Whether the public auction is legitimate without notification of the date of public auction in the disposition of national taxes.

According to Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, the notice must be given to the delinquent taxpayer and mortgagee on the date of public auction, but such notice is not a requirement of public auction, and it is merely a notification by the State to a position similar to the execution creditor under the Compulsory Execution Act. Thus, even if such notification was not made, the disposition of public auction alone cannot be deemed unlawful. If the public auction was conducted at a low price due to the lack of the original purchaser under Article 82(4) of the same Act, and the price was reduced by a low price, it shall not

Articles 76 and 82 of the National Tax Collection Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Nu161 delivered on February 23, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 9466, Supreme Court Decision 19Nu20, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1870 delivered on December 23, 197)

Plaintiff

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the defendant on December 28, 1970 against 57 square meters and 8 square meters of land 57 square meters and 12 square meters of 104, Busan-do, Busan-si, the sale of which was made by the defendant shall be revoked.

Judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

On December 15, 1969, the fact that on December 28, 1970, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 28, 1970, sold Hobbebbe, which was owned by the Plaintiff, on December 15, 1969, the fact that on December 28, 1970, the Nonparty was at KRW 330,000 and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the Nonparty on January 30, 1971.

The plaintiff, from May 28, 1970 to December 28, 12 of the same year, did not notify the delinquent taxpayer and the owner of the date of the public auction at all to the plaintiff. The National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives prior to the seizure of the above real estate did not notify the mortgagee of the date of the public auction at least 3 million won prior to the seizure of the above real estate at the highest price on July 21, 1969. The plaintiff argued that the above land amounting to 6 million won at the market price is not 330,00 won and 330 million won as a result of the public auction without notification of the date of the public auction to the National Tax Collection Act. Thus, according to Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, if the head of the tax office notifies the public auction of the date, place, method, etc. of the public auction at the original price of 30,000 won and it cannot be found that the above price of the real estate was unreasonable as the result of the defendant's notice of the public auction to the National Tax Collection Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of main lawsuit is clearly groundless, and it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)