[1] The validity of Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the repealed Act after the decision of unconstitutionality on the whole of the former Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site is made

[2] Whether the grounds for seizure have been lost or the need to continue the seizure has become nonexistent due to the unconstitutionality of the taxation disposition and the laws based on the procedure for disposition on default, etc. on the grounds of the "other grounds stipulated in Article 53 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, which provide the grounds for the necessary grounds for revocation of seizure (affirmative)

[1] Article 3 of the Addenda of the repealed Act (Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198) provides that "the previous provisions shall apply to the imposition, collection, etc. of charges imposed or to be imposed by the previous provisions as charges before December 31, 1997, which were imposed or to be imposed by the previous provisions, as charges before the enforcement of this Act." However, the supplementary provisions stipulate that the former Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198) is a provision under the premise that the former Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 198) is constitutional. Since the above repealed Act was enacted and the decision of unconstitutionality as to

[2] Article 53 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "if a seizure becomes unnecessary due to the payment, appropriation, suspension of public auction, cancellation of the imposition, or any other reason for the reason for the necessary reason for the cancellation of the seizure," the term "other reason" includes not only cases where a tax liability becomes extinct, or where a surplus possibility to be appropriated for the amount of delinquent tax is no longer available even after the disposition for arrears is made, but also cases where a ground for the seizure is lost or where a further disposition for arrears is not necessary due to the decision of unconstitutionality as to the tax disposition and the law based on the procedure for the disposition for arrears.

[1] Paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Abolition Act (Act No. 5571 of September 19, 1998) / [2] Article 53 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 30 of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Hun-Ba37 and 66 cases (Hun-Ba34, 337) decided April 29, 1999 (Gong2002Sang, 1122) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1925 decided June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1830) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5189 decided June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2240), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15193 decided December 20, 202 (Gong197, 1997; 435, 202Du3829 decided Feb. 29, 2002)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Future, Attorneys Park Hong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Han-ro, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu13579 delivered on January 29, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 3 of the Addenda of the repealed Act (Act No. 5571 of September 19, 1998) provides that "the previous provisions shall apply to the imposition, collection, etc. of charges imposed or to be imposed by the previous provisions as charges before December 31, 1997, which were imposed or to be imposed by the previous provisions, as charges before this Act enters into force," however, the supplementary provisions stipulate that the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (repealed by Act No. 5571 of September 19, 1998, hereinafter the same shall apply) is constitutional. Since the above repealed Act was enacted and the decision of unconstitutionality on the whole of the former Act was made, this supplementary provisions cannot be applied any more (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da2294, Apr. 12, 2002; 2001Du1925, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

In the same purport, the lower court determined that the instant charges cannot be collected by compulsory collection due to the decision of unconstitutionality on the old Act on the Ownership of Housing Site is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, this part

2. Article 53(1)1 of the International Collection Act provides for "when the seizure becomes unnecessary due to the reasons for the necessary cancellation of the seizure, appropriation, suspension of public auction, cancellation of the imposition, or other reasons." In this context, the term "other reasons" includes not only cases where the tax liability becomes extinct, or where there is no surplus possibility to be appropriated for the delinquent tax amount even after the disposition for arrears is taken (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu5189, Jun. 11, 1996; 95Nu15193, Dec. 20, 196; 95Nu15193, Dec. 20, 196; 95Nu15193, etc.) but also cases where the grounds for the seizure are lost or it is no longer necessary to continue the seizure due to the decision of unconstitutionality on the grounds of the taxation disposition and the procedure for disposition for arrears.

In the same purport, the court below decided that the charge in this case should be released by applying mutatis mutandis Article 53 (1) 1 of the National Tax Collection Act, inasmuch as it is impossible for the court below to collect the charge in this case due to a subsequent disposition on default following the disposition on the seizure of this case due to the decision of unconstitutionality on the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Site, and there is no error of misunderstanding the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and Article 105 (1) of the Local Finance Act and Article 138 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act cannot affect

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne and so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)