The validity of the disposition for arrears by the head of a tax office, where the state property is mistakenly known as personal property;

Public sale as a disposition for arrears, which is the head of a tax office, with the knowledge of the state property recovered from the illegal person as personal property, is invalid.

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

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1531 delivered on November 9, 1971

Dong Industrial Promotion Corporation

Republic of Korea and two others

Seoul Central District Court (69A1492) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da11492)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

(1) Defendant 2, on September 21, 1964, performed the procedure for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer registration due to public sale on August 5, 1964, and Defendant 3, on the above site No. 41106 of the receipt of the same registry office on August 7, 1969, as No. 41106 of the receipt of the same registry office on August 6, 1969, for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer due to sale on August 6, 1969, respectively.

(2) The defendant Republic of Korea shall execute the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on March 27, 1965 against the plaintiff on the above site.

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

The plaintiff's legal representative against the defendant Republic of Korea shall take the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer registration due to the public sale on August 8, 1964 and the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer due to the sale on August 7, 1969, the receipt of the same registry office No. 41106 of the same registry office on August 7, 1969 and the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer due to the sale on August 6, 1969, and the defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer due to the sale on March 27, 1965 against the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants.

The defendants are revoked by the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to the above evidence No. 1 (O. 1) No. 3, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were purchased under the above evidence No. 410-5 of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 410, Sep. 21, 1964, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on August 5, 1964 by the public auction No. 4106 of the same registry No. 4107, Aug. 7, 1969; the non-party 3's transfer registration was made on August 6, 1969; the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's new evidence No. 12 (a sales contract); the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's new evidence No. 4 and the non-party 2's new evidence No. 97 (a sales order); the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's new evidence No. 3 (a) are presumed to be cancelled.

Therefore, the above public sale of the above land conducted by the head of Yeongdeungpopo District Tax Office is a disposition that misleads the state-owned land as owned by Nonparty 3 and becomes null and void. Thus, the above transfer registration of ownership on the above land by Defendant 2, which was made on the ground of the disposition of invalidation of the above public sale, is a registration invalidation of the cause, and the above transfer registration on the above land by Defendant 3, which was made on the basis of the above transfer registration by Defendant 2, which is null and void, is also a registration invalidation of the cause. Thus, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each above transfer registration on the above land to the Republic of Korea, and Defendant 2 and 3 is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer on the above land against the plaintiff.

2. Defendant 2 and 3 asserted that the distribution of farmland by the above land is a farmland distribution made to Nonparty 4, not a farmer, and it is null and void. However, even if it is a farmland distribution made to a person who is not a farmer, it cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. Furthermore, according to the testimony of Nonparty 2, it can be recognized that the above land was distributed by Nonparty 4 while the farmland was distributed to Nonparty 4 at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, it is reasonable to note

3. In addition, Defendant 3 did not issue a certificate of repayment regarding the distribution of the above land by Nonparty 4, and therefore, the distribution of the land is deemed null and void as a matter of course, but the fact that Nonparty 4 completed the repayment of the above land upon the distribution of the land is identical to the above recognition. Therefore, even if the certificate of repayment was not issued, it cannot be deemed that the distribution is null and void as a matter of course. Thus, the above assertion is reasonable.

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and 3 seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the above land on behalf of the defendant 2 and 3 on March 27, 1965 on the above land will be accepted on the ground that the plaintiff's claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer registration of the above land on March 27, 1965 on behalf of the defendant 2 and this conclusion is just in the original judgment, and the defendant's appeal is just in the original judgment, and the defendant's appeal is without merit. However, it is unfair that the ground for the registration of ownership transfer registration of the above land in the original judgment was made by public sale on August 8, 1964, since it is unfair that the original judgment is to be modified, and the bearing of litigation costs is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 8

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)