Seoul Central District Court-2016-Ban-527707 ( October 13, 2017)

Where the head of a tax office newly established after the separate opening office fails to register the change of the seizure authority, and the request for issuance is omitted, there is no substantive defect in the sale price.

The head of a tax office newly established due to the separate establishment of the tax office shall change the name of the seizure authority prior to the separate establishment of the tax office, and the fact that the request for issuance was omitted by the separate establishment of the tax office at the time of the public auction alone cannot be deemed as a substantive defect

Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

2017Na28329 Unlawful gains

Korea

AA Gu and four others

September 29, 2017

October 20, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

the Gu Office's place and place of action

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The decision of the plaintiff is revoked. The defendant AA shall pay to the plaintiff 00,000 won, the defendant 00,000 won for the defendant 00,000, the defendant 00,000 won for the defendant 00,000 for the defendant 00, the defendant 00, and the defendant 1******** the Corporation shall pay the plaintiff 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for appeal by the defendant is not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and even if the evidence additionally submitted in the first instance court is examined as evidence submitted in the first instance court, the fact-finding and decision in the first instance court is justifiable.

Accordingly, this court shall accept the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and shall add the judgment as follows with regard to the matters the plaintiff asserts as the grounds for appeal.

2. The addition;

A. The plaintiff's main assertion based on the grounds of appeal

산하의 QQ세무서장이 이 사건 공매절차에서 수차례에 걸친 교부청구 후 최종적으로 00,000,000원을 배분받았다.

그러나 QQ세무서장은 공매절차 이전에 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 체납처분에 의한 압류등기를 마쳤고 이러한 압류등기에는 공매절차에서의 배분요구와 같은 효력이 있으므로, 공매기관은 조세채권자가 체납된 국세의 세액을 계산할 수 있는 증빙서류를 제출하지 아니한 때에도 압류등기촉탁서나 압류조서에 의한 체납세액을 조사하여 배분하여야 한다. 또한 WW세무서가 QQ세무서로부터 분리개청되기 전에 이루어진 위 압류의 효력은 WW세무서에 대하여도 미친다.

Therefore, when the Plaintiff had the right to preferentially distribute the total delinquent tax amount of KRW 00,000,00 as stated in the attachment report (A)(5), the part that the Defendants, subordinate, was distributed, constitutes unjust enrichment.

B. Determination

1) As the plaintiff's assertion, where the attachment is registered as a procedure for the disposition of national taxes in arrears with respect to the real estate subject to public auction, the request for delivery shall be deemed to be effective. In this case, where the tax creditor fails to submit evidential documents which enable him to calculate the amount of national tax in arrears until the end of the request for distribution, the public auction agency shall investigate evidentiary materials in the public auction execution record or the amount of tax in arrears with the relevant registration request for attachment or attachment report, and distribute it by calculating the amount of the relevant tax payer's credit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da19276, Mar. 22, 1994).

2) However, unlike the cases where a tax claim holder fails to submit a claim statement at all during the public sale procedure and the distribution should be made based on a request for the registration of the seizure or the attachment report, etc., if the tax claim holder's submission of a claim statement concerning the amount of tax claims or revised a distribution statement (the same as the distribution statement of auction procedure) after the correction is made, the distribution statement becomes final and conclusive according to the confirmed distribution statement, and the distribution was made based on the amount of claims on the submitted claim statement, and as such, the distribution cannot be made based on the amount of claims on the submitted distribution statement, and as long as the amount of distribution cannot be distributed in excess of the reported amount of claims, even if the amount of distribution was distributed to subordinate creditors, etc. due to the failure of the senior tax claim holder to claim for the amount of distribution, it cannot be deemed that there is no legal ground (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da24911, Sept. 8, 200).

3) 그런데 이 사건의 경우, 원고 산하 QQ세무서장이 공매절차에서 배분청구서(을마 2)를 제출하며 채권금액의 총액을 00,000,000원으로 신고하였고, 이에 따라 배분계산서(을가 4)가 그 신고채권액을 기준으로 작성 및 확정되어 배분이 완료되었다. 위에서 살펴본 법리와 제1심 판결이 판시한 법리에 의하면, 이러한 경우 신고채권액을 기준으로 배분계산서를 작성하여야 하므로 위 배분계산서 자체에 실체적 하자가 없고 그에 따른 배분금의 지급을 들어 법률상 원인이 없다고 할 수 없다(원고가 언급한 대법원 1994. 9. 13. 선고 94누1944 판결은 사실관계나 쟁점이 이 사건과 다르므로 이 사건에 적용할 수 없다).

4) Meanwhile, there is no fact that the attachment by the disposition on default on the pertinent real estate or the participation in the attachment under Article 57 (3) of the National Tax Collection Act was registered in the name of the head of the WT Tax Office (or the WT) under the Plaintiff’s jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no room to separately recognize the validity of the request for delivery based on the registration of attachment or the agenda of the request

C. Sub-committee

The plaintiff's assertion in the trial is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants shall be dismissed on the ground that all of the claims are without merit. The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety.