The purport of Article 21 of the former National Tax Collection Act that stipulates that a contract with the State or a public organization shall be concluded, or that a certificate of full payment or a certificate of full collection of tax shall be submitted when such payment is received.

The purpose of Article 21 of the former National Tax Collection Act is to conclude a contract with the State or a public organization or to submit a certificate of full payment or a certificate of deferred collection of tax when receiving the payment is to prevent default of tax and facilitate and reduce the collection thereof. Thus, the submission of the above certificate is not a valid requirement for entering into a contract with the State or a public organization or for exercising the right to claim when receiving the payment of the price, but a non-submission of the certificate is merely a real reason for refusing payment of the price when concluding the contract or receiving the payment from the State or the public organization.

Attorney Noh Jeong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Crossing Farmland Corporation (Attorney Park Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na1722 delivered on December 5, 1974

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim as follows.

In other words, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the full amount of the claim for the partial amount of the claim based on the bond attachment and assignment order, but according to Article 21 of the former National Tax Collection Act and Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the plaintiff claims for the partial amount of the claim for the partial amount of the claim against the defendant association, the plaintiff and the non-party forest industry corporation under the above assignment order should submit a certificate or a certificate of deferment of collection issued by the head of the competent tax office in the future of the defendant association. The defendant association may refuse the payment of the full amount of the claim unless the documents are submitted. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had submitted the above certificate in the future of the defendant association. Thus, even if the plaintiff has a full amount of the claim against the defendant as alleged above, the defendant association rejected the plaintiff's claim for the full amount of the claim for the full amount

However, the purpose of Article 21 of the former National Tax Collection Act, which requires the State or a public organization to enter into a contract with the State or a public organization, or to submit a certificate of full payment of tax, or a certificate of full payment of tax deferment at the time of receiving the above certificate, is to prevent the default of tax and facilitate the collection thereof. Thus, it cannot be said that it is necessary to submit the above certificate when entering into the contract with the State or a public organization, or when receiving the payment of the price, it cannot be said that the contract or the exercise of the claim is valid, and if the other party refuses to comply with the request when the State or the public organization entered into the contract or received the payment of the price at the time of concluding the contract or the payment of the price, it is merely a reason for refusing the actual payment of the money if the other party refuses to comply with the request. In addition, the State or the public organization may not refuse the payment on the ground that the other party is not delinquent even if

As above, the submission of the above certificate is merely a mere ground for refusal of payment, and if the plaintiff's presentation of the certificate is not a valid requirement for the exercise of the plaintiff's right to claim full payment, the defendant union failed to submit it to the plaintiff, and the defendant union can refuse payment of the plaintiff's claim. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles under Article 21 of the National Tax Collection Act, since the defendant union's rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the above certificate was not submitted by the time when the plaintiff's execution of the plaintiff's final judgment was made, the defendant union could refuse payment of the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the court below decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)