Whether or not to distribute or deposit claims for provisional seizure when the public official in charge of disposition on default distributes the proceeds of public sale.

In the procedure of public auction due to the disposition on default of national taxes, it is not necessary to accurately investigate the existence and amount of some claims and the priority thereof, and distribute the proceeds of public auction, and even if there are claims already attached on the property in arrears, the public official in charge of disposition on default shall not distribute the money to the provisional attachment creditor or deposit

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 99Gu20335 delivered on November 19, 1999

1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's failure shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against it shall be dismissed.2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the

1. Scope of judgment of party members;

The plaintiff filed a claim for cancellation of the disposition to distribute the proceeds of public auction as stated in the purport of the claim, and the court below accepted the claim for cancellation of the disposition to distribute the proceeds of public auction and dismissed the claim for distribution of the proceeds of public auction. Accordingly, since only the defendant filed an appeal against this, only the claim for cancellation of the disposition to distribute the proceeds of public auction, which is the part against the defendant, shall be subject to the judgment of the party member, and

2. Whether there is a refusal disposition

A. The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff did not file a claim for distribution at the time of distributing the proceeds of public auction of this case, and since the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of his refusal to distribute, it cannot be viewed that there is any refusal disposition against the plaintiff.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no counter-proof.

"(1) 원고는 1995. 3. 7. 소외 이ㅇㅇ 소유인 별지 목록 기재 각 부동산(이하이 사건 부동산'이라고 한다)에 관하여 이ㅇㅇ에 대한 금 30,000,000원의 채권을 보전하기 위하여 서울지방법원 95카단14660호로 부동산가압류결정을 받아 1995. 3. 10. 이 사건 부동산에 그 가압류기입등기가 마쳐졌다.",(2) 피고는 이ㅇㅇ에 대한 체납세액을 징수하기 위하여 1995. 6. 22. 이 사건 부동산을 압류한 뒤 공매절차를 진행하여 1996. 8. 5. 이 사건 부동산을 금 53,060,000원에 매각하였다.

"(3) 원고는 1996. 9. 14. 피고로부터 채권신고서 제출안내 공문을 수령한 뒤 1996. 9. 23. 채권계산서를 첨부하여 피고에게 공매대금 배분신청을 하였으나, 피고는 1996. 10. 9. 매각대금에서 제1순위로 체납처분비 금 1,165,150원, 제2순위로 별지 목록 제2 기재 주택의 소액임차인인 안ㅇㅇ, 김ㅇㅇ에게 각 금 7,000,000원, 제3순위로 근저당권자인 소외 주식회사 ㅇㅇ은행 ㅇㅇ동지점에게 금 19,012,450원, 제4순위로 체납처분권자인 ㅇㅇ세무서에게 금 9,065,920원, 제5순위로 1995. 6. 20.자 근저당권자인 소외 김ㅇㅇ에게 금 9,816,480원을 각 배분(이하이 사건 처분'이라 한다)하는 것으로 배분계산서를 작성하였다.",다. 판단

According to the above facts, the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application for distribution by preparing a distribution statement against the plaintiff's application for distribution, and the defendant's act constitutes a rejection disposition that is the object of administrative litigation. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Appropriateness of the disposition of refusal.

A. The parties' assertion

원고는, 국세징수법 제81조 제4항에서 매각대금은 민법 기타 법령에 의하여 배분하여야 한다고 규정하고 있고, 가압류명령은 채권자의 피보전채권액의 범위내에서 가압류목적물에 대한 매매, 증여, 저당권설정등의 일체의 처분을 금지하는 효력이 있어 법원의 경매절차에서는 가압류후의 저당권자와 가압류권자에게 채권액에 비례하여 안분배당을 받도록 정하고 있으므로, 이 사건 공매대금의 배분에 있어서도 공매대금 중 원고의 가압류이후 설정된 저당권자인 위 김ㅇㅇ에게 배분된 금 9,816,480원은 원고와 김ㅇㅇ의 채권액에 비례하여 원고에게 금 4,268,205원, 김ㅇㅇ에게 금 5,548,275원씩 배분되어야 할 것이라고 주장하고, 이에 대하여 피고는 원고와 같은 가압류채권자는 국세기본법 및 국세징수법의 규정에 따른 공매대금의 배분대상자에 해당되지 않는다고 주장한다.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 80 of the former National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 5190 of Dec. 30, 1996; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the amount of money falling under each of the following subparagraphs shall be distributed pursuant to the provisions of Article 81. Article 80 of the Act provides that the money attached under subparagraph 1, 2, the money which a delinquent taxpayer or a third party obligor receives due to the seizure of bonds, securities, intangible property rights, etc. shall be the proceeds from the seizure under subparagraph 3, the money which a delinquent taxpayer receives by the request for delivery under subparagraph 4, and Article 81(1) of the Act provides that the proceeds from the sale of attached property shall be distributed according to subparagraph 1, additional dues, delinquent taxes, local taxes, or mortgages related to the seizure, (2) the national tax, additional dues, or public charges, (3) the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act (amended by Act No. 8190 of Dec. 30, 199).

In accordance with the procedural law established by the court, which is an independent judicial agency, the procedure of auction and distribution under the Civil Procedure Act, there are two primary purposes in order to facilitate the prompt satisfaction of tax claims by administrative agencies based on the public nature of tax claims. There is no express provision that the provisions on the procedure of execution of the Civil Procedure Act are to be applied mutatis mutandis in the public sale procedure (Article 81(4) of the Act, and it does not mean that other claims may be included in the subject of distribution under other Acts and subordinate statutes.) In the distribution of the proceeds of public sale under the disposition of national tax in arrears, it cannot be viewed that there is no reason to exclude the Plaintiff’s share of the proceeds of the public sale from the amount of the provisional seizure or the proceeds of the provisional seizure, even if there are remaining claims after appropriating the proceeds of the public sale, national tax and mortgage, etc., as well as the repayment of the proceeds of the provisional seizure under the provisions of Articles 80 and 81 of the Act and Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's rejection of the plaintiff's application for the allocation of the price for public auction is legitimate and without merit, and the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed. Since the part of the decision of the court below concerning the revocation of rejection disposition is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the above part of the decision of the court below is revoked and the part concerning the plaintiff'