Whether a legitimate request for delivery of national tax may be deemed a legitimate request for delivery to an auction court in case where a request for delivery of national tax is sent to the receiver with the registration of the court in which the auction case is pending (affirmative)

If a request for delivery containing a declaration of intent of the request for delivery of national tax is received by the court in which the auction case is pending, the act of the request for delivery shall be deemed to have been conducted against the competent auction court, and it shall not be deemed that the declaration of intention of the request for delivery was made against the institution such as the ○○ District Court’s registration, or the ○○ District Court’s registration and ear on the request for delivery, on the ground that the indication of the person who received the outer sealing of the mail was indicated as “n○ District Court’s registration”

Article 111(1) of the Civil Act, Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act

Korea

Korean Branch Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Dok-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na14312 delivered on July 7, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated the request for the delivery of KRW 3,077 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") prior to Sincheon-si ( Address omitted), as the collective security right holder of Sincheon-si (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), in the voluntary auction procedure of Suwon District Court 97 Ma79671, which was commenced upon the application of the new mutual savings and finance company of Sincheon-si (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case"), and the head of Sungnam-nam District Tax Office under the plaintiff's control of the plaintiff, on July 24, 1998, pursuant to Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act, the non-party's delinquent tax amount of KRW 151,785,280 (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party's delinquent tax amount of the land of this case"), and sent the request for delivery of KRW 136,743,510 and 70 won to the court, and there is no error in finding the facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Next, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the above request form sent by the head of Sungnam District Tax Office to the above court is clearly stated in the taxable year, tax item, tax amount, due date of payment, and the amount of request for delivery of the national tax that the head of Sungnam District Tax Office intends to request the issuance of the delinquent taxpayer's name, address, and the amount of request for delivery as stipulated in Article 61 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act, and the number of the auction case and the request form for the issuance of the auction case are stated, but the general affairs department in receipt of the request form shall find and deliver it to the above head of the above tax office on July 31, 1998, which is after the date of the successful bid without informing the employees in charge of the auction corresponding to the above case. Thus, as long as the request form including the expression of request for the delivery of national tax is received at the court where the auction case is pending, the request form shall be deemed to have been made to the above auction court, or it shall not be deemed to have been made against the original district court.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the request for delivery of the national tax of this case by the head of Sungnam Tax Office was lawfully made to the auction court, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression of intent of the request for delivery. The ground of appeal on

3. The head of a tax office’s request for the delivery of national taxes to the auction court pursuant to Article 56 of the National Tax Collection Act is identical in nature to the demand for distribution in the real estate auction procedure under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the request for the delivery of national taxes may be made only by the auction date, as well as by the auction date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da19276, Mar. 22, 1994). Meanwhile, the execution of distribution pursuant to the final distribution schedule does not confirm the rights under the substantive law. In a case where a creditor who is liable for receiving the distribution receives the distribution without receiving the distribution, and where a person who is unable to receive the distribution receives the distribution receives the distribution, the creditor who did not receive the distribution has the right to request for the return of unjust enrichment against the person who received the distribution, regardless of whether he raised an objection against the distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da53230, Oct. 10, 200;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even though the request for the delivery of national tax of this case was lawfully received by the auction court prior to the successful bid date, the court below acknowledged that the auction court did not know that the above documents were sent to the person in charge of the request for the delivery of national tax and did not deliver it to the general secretary and did not make a request for the delivery of national tax, and therefore made a distribution with the exception of the plaintiff. Although the national tax of this case was priority over the secured mortgage claim of the defendants, the defendants' receiving dividends in an amount equivalent to the same amount constitutes unjust enrichment and ordered the return thereof. The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles and the decision of the court below is justified, and it was impossible for the Sungnam Tax Office to know that the auction court did not know the fact that the request for the delivery of national tax of this case was returned to the defendant by registered mail and the auction court did not notify the person in charge of the request for the delivery of this case as to the delivery of this case by registered mail. Therefore, it is not justified in the misapprehension of legal principles on unjust enrichment

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by determining the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)