Priority relationship between contributions, etc. that have come due and are secured by mortgages, etc. before the National Health Insurance Act enters into force.

A pension premium, etc., the payment deadline of which was due before July 1, 2000, the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act, cannot take precedence over a claim secured by a mortgage. This legal principle should be deemed the same even in cases where the mortgage, etc. was established after the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act. Accordingly, the pension premium, etc., the payment deadline of which was due before the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act is lower than the secured claim of a mortgage, etc.

Article 9(3) of Addenda to the National Health Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 6286 of Dec. 23, 2000), Article 81 of the former National Pension Act (amended by Act No. 6286 of Dec. 23, 200), Article 58 of the former Medical Insurance Act (repealed by Act No. 5854 of Feb. 8, 199, Article 73 of the current National Health Insurance Act) (see Article 73 of the National Health Insurance Act)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Law Firm Pung, Attorneys Gyeong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

National Pension Management Corporation

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Na10051 Delivered on April 14, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the National Health Insurance Act which was enforced on July 1, 200, when other Acts and subordinate statutes cite the previous Medical Insurance Act, if there are provisions corresponding thereto under the National Health Insurance Act, the corresponding provisions under the National Health Insurance Act or the National Health Insurance Act shall be deemed to have been cited instead of the previous provisions (Article 13 of the Addenda to the National Health Insurance Act). Thus, the provisions under Article 81 of the former National Pension Act, which were in force at the time, shall be amended to the same order of insurance premium under the National Health Insurance Act, and accordingly, Article 73 of the former National Health Insurance Act shall be applied instead of Article 58 of the Medical Insurance Act, with respect to the order of collection of pension premium under the former National Pension Act, etc. Accordingly, if the payment deadline has already arrived under the proviso to Article 73 of the National Health Insurance Act, the order of collection of pension premium, etc. under the National Health Insurance Act shall be the priority established thereafter (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27481, Nov. 14, 2003).

However, Article 9 of the Addenda to the National Health Insurance Act provides that the collection of insurance premiums, etc., the payment period of which has expired under the previous Medical Insurance Act and the National Medical Insurance Act at the time of the enforcement of this Act, shall be based on the previous provisions. According to Article 81 of the former National Pension Act and Article 58 (1) 3 of the Medical Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), it shall take precedence over other claims except national taxes and local taxes, and no other ground exists for applying Article 35 (1) 3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes with respect to national tax priority. Thus, even if the payment period has expired at the time of the enforcement of the Act, it shall be interpreted that it shall take precedence over general claims, but it shall not take precedence over claims secured by mortgage, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 87Meu428

If Article 9 of the Addenda to the National Health Insurance Act provides that the collection of pension contributions, etc. under the former Act shall be based on the previous provisions regarding the collection of insurance contributions, etc. for which the payment deadline has already expired at the time of the enforcement of the above Act, the pension contributions, etc. which have already been due before July 1, 2000, cannot be given priority to the claims secured by mortgage, etc., and such legal principle is the same even when the mortgage, etc. was established after the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act. Thus, the pension contributions, etc. which have been due before the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act, regardless of whether the mortgage, etc. was registered, the date of registration, etc.

On the contrary, the court below determined that the national pension contributions and arrears in this case, which had already been due before the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act, should be distributed more preferentially than the plaintiff's secured claims based on the premise that they take precedence over the secured claims of the right to collateral security established after the enforcement date of the National Health Insurance Act, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 9 of the Addenda to the National Health Insurance Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore,

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)