logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1967. 4. 25. 선고 67누27 판결
[공매처분무효확인등][집15(1)행,070]
Main Issues

Cases not considered to be "a person who has other rights" under Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act;

Summary of Judgment

"Person who has other rights" in Article 76 of the former National Tax Collection Act (Act No. 819, Dec. 8, 612) does not include persons who have provisional attachment rights or persons who have the right to claim for the public auction.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Korea Coal Corporation

Defendant-Appellee

Head of the tax office;

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 66Gu174 delivered on January 19, 1967

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the plaintiff's agent's implied ground of appeal.

According to the facts established by the court below, since non-party 1, who was an employee of the plaintiff, paid the money to the plaintiff, the Board of Audit and Inspection rendered a decision on May 17, 1960 to compensate for 2,216,000 won to the non-party 1. However, since the non-party 1 failed to perform his liability for compensation within the period determined by the Board of Audit and Inspection, the head of the plaintiff's supervisory agency entrusted the defendant with the disposition of default on the non-party 1's real estate, and the defendant sold the non-party 1's real estate at 7,10,000 won by public auction. The plaintiff already completed the provisional attachment execution to preserve the civil claim against the non-party 1's above real estate before the above public auction disposition, and as seen above, the plaintiff had other rights to receive the above compensation as stated in Article 76 of the National Tax Collection Act, and therefore, it is difficult to view the plaintiff as the defendant in the above legal relationship with the above disposition of public auction.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court is Hong Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) and Dong-dong (Presiding Justice)

arrow