The validity of a public auction as a result of the disposition on default on the title holder of the registration concerning the real estate registered for invalidity of cause.

If the registration of transfer of ownership in the defendant's future is the registration invalidation of cause, it cannot be deemed that this real estate is owned by the defendant, notwithstanding the presumption of registration, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the public sale of this real estate by the head of the competent tax office as a disposition of national tax in arrears to the defendant is ultimately a public sale of a third party's property, which is not a delinquent taxpayer, and the defect is significant and obvious, and thus it cannot

Article 61 of the National Tax Collection Act

Hando Tourism Health Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and 1 other

Defendant 1 and one other attorney-at-law

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na2627 delivered on November 2, 1976

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the agent of the plaintiff suit are first judged.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Defendant 1 did not purchase the real estate of this case which was owned by the Plaintiff Company as alleged by the Plaintiff, or even if he purchased this real estate, the real estate was the only basic property of the Plaintiff Company, and Defendant 1 was the representative liquidator of the Plaintiff Company at the time of the sales contract, although Defendant 1 did not obtain a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders or approval of the board of directors (or the board of directors) under Articles 374, 398, and 542 of the Commercial Act, the registration in the future of Defendant 1 should be null and void, even if Defendant 1 did not have a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders under Article 374, 398, and 542 of the Commercial Act, as long as the head of the competent tax office recognized this real estate as the ownership of Defendant 1 in response to the presumption of registration in disposing of national taxes in arrears with the above Defendant 1, it cannot be objectively clear that the disposition of this public sale by the director of the competent tax office would be revoked.

However, if Defendant 1’s ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate is deemed invalid on the ground as alleged by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the instant real estate is owned by Defendant 1, notwithstanding the presumption of registration, unless there are any special circumstances. Therefore, the head of the competent tax office’s public sale of the instant real estate as a disposition of national tax in arrears to Defendant 1 is a public sale of the property by a third party who is not the defaulted taxpayer, and its defect is significant and obvious, and thus, it cannot

Therefore, the court below held that the public auction disposition by the director of a tax office, who did not deliberate and decide on whether the ownership transfer registration against Defendant 1 regarding the instant real estate by the plaintiff is invalid or not, is merely an administrative disposition that can be revoked merely rather than an administrative disposition that is void or void as a matter of course, and thus, the court below should not dismiss the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)