(a) The time when the order of priority of national taxes and other claims is determined, in allocating the proceeds of sale after the sale of the attached property through the procedure for the disposition on default of national taxes;

B. The provisions of the Framework Act on National Taxes applicable to cases where the payment deadline for national taxes and the procedures for seizure, public sale, etc. are conducted prior to the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 35(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, but the sale price is distributed after

A. The purport of Article 35(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4277 of Dec. 31, 190) and Article 35(1) of the current Framework Act on National Taxes that provides the preferential right of national taxes (amended by Act No. 4277 of Dec. 31, 190) that “national taxes, public charges, and other claims shall be collected in preference to other claims” is that a taxpayer’s property may be paid national taxes in preference to other public charges and other claims in the compulsory refund procedure. Thus, the priority order between national taxes and other claims in allocating the proceeds from the sale of attached property through the procedure of disposition on default under the National Tax Collection

B. Even if the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality on the distribution of the sale price was made before September 3, 190 after the above decision of unconstitutionality, a claim secured by a mortgage established prior to the due date for payment of national taxes cannot be applied under Article 35(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as a result, even if the time for the establishment of the mortgage is within one year from the due date for payment of national taxes, the priority is given to national taxes even if the time for the establishment of the mortgage is within one year from the due date for payment of national taxes.

(a)B. Article 35(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4277 of Dec. 31, 1990) (amended by the Constitutional Court Order No. 4277 of Sep. 3, 1990; Decision No. 89Hun-Ga95 of the Constitutional Court Order referred to as “one year from September 3, 199”); Article 35(1)/(a) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 83(2) of the National Tax Collection Act / (b)

(b) Constitutional Court Order 89Hun-Ga95 dated September 3, 1990 (No. 11637Sang, No. 32)

Suwon Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na19875 delivered on October 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 35(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 4277 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that, with respect to the order of priority among claims secured by general national taxes and mortgage in collecting national taxes, only claims secured by mortgage established one year prior to the due date for payment of national taxes shall be priority over the national taxes, and even if a claim is secured by mortgage within one year from the due date for payment of national taxes, the said time for payment shall be later than the national taxes if the time for payment is less than one year from the due date for payment of national taxes, but the Constitutional Court issued a decision that the portion “one year from the due date for payment” in Article 35(1)3 of the above Act was unconstitutional, and thus, the above portion shall be deemed as having been unconstitutional before the due date for payment of national taxes and other claims guaranteed by mortgage established prior to the due date for payment of national taxes under Article 47(2)3 of the National Tax Collection Act, which would have become unconstitutional after the due date for payment of national taxes and other claims under the current Act.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the national tax of this case was lower than the plaintiff's reported claim secured by a mortgage is just and there is no ground to argue that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground of a different opinion.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)